Appeals Court: Presenting an employee's performance evaluation to the Employee Affairs Department is an exceptional, not a standard, procedure
- Court overturns "Very Good" performance rating for an employee who filed an objection, citing formal deficiencies and violations of legal regulations
The Court of Appeal ruled to overturn the first-instance judgment and re-ruled to annul the employee’s performance rating of "Very Good" through a simple annulment, following her objection to the rating. All of her previous ratings had been "Excellent."
Attorney Houra Al-Habib appeared before the Court of Appeal and delivered oral arguments, requesting the annulment of the first-instance judgment and a new ruling to annul the disputed performance rating, based on procedural violations and formal deficiencies in the rating decision.
The Court affirmed that referring a performance rating to the Employee Affairs Committee is an exceptional procedure to be resorted to only in two specific cases: a disagreement between the immediate supervisor and the higher-level supervisor, or the absence of a higher-level supervisor above the immediate supervisor.
The Court emphasized that no legally prescribed procedure may be bypassed, nor may a subsequent procedure be initiated before the preceding one is fully completed. Failure to do so constitutes a violation of the procedures stipulated in Civil Service Council Decision No. 36 of 2006, which mandates that performance reports be referred to the Employee Affairs Committee in cases of disagreement between the immediate supervisor and the next higher supervisor, or in the absence of a higher-level supervisor.
The Court also held that a performance rating decision lacking its date of issuance, date of approval, or the minutes number and its approval date by the Employee Affairs Department is formally deficient, as these details pertain to a substantive procedure explicitly provided for by law.
The Court concluded that the formal deficiencies in the rating decision necessitate its simple annulment.
The ruling underscores the importance of respecting procedural legality and employee safeguards when issuing performance evaluation decisions, as the integrity of procedures constitutes a fundamental pillar of the legality of administrative decisions.
