Court of Appeal: The employer has the right to choose the appropriate time for promotion

Judgment of the judiciary accepting the appeal of an employee who was harmed by not being promoted by his employer in form and rejection in substance.
The facts of the case indicate that the appellant is a citizen who has been working in a government agency for more than 20 years, and he demanded in the grievance submitted to the court to amend his employment status, but his employer sent a letter guaranteeing his retirement due to a decision directed to public institutions and government agencies to stop any promotions or bonuses until the issuance of an administration law Human Resources.
The complainant requested, in a memorandum submitted to the judiciary, to cancel the negative decision from the administration, and the judiciary to amend his job status, grant him the first degree, pay his dues for that promotion retroactively from the date of maturity, and oblige his administration to provide a model for the job structure of the agency and apply the principle of reciprocity.
The decision was issued to the Court of Appeal not to accept the case, and the administrative decision was absent, and the appellant mourns the judgment of his violation of the law, the error in its application, the shortcoming in causation and the violation of the right of defense for the reasons that not being promoted by seniority constitutes a negative decision challenging him on the grounds of cancellation.
Also, the term may, which the promotions articles began with, does not mean the administration’s freedom to grant the employee promotion and prevent it for a legally established right, but rather to motivate and encourage them to raise the level of performance.
The administrative authorities’ refusal or refusal to take a decision that they should have taken in accordance with the laws and regulations shall be considered as administrative decisions.
The principle is that promotion decisions do not obligate the management to issue them legally, and it is a matter that the administration is independent of its discretion according to the circumstances of the situation and the requirements of the public interest and the need to work without penalty.
And that the administration always has the right to choose the appropriate time to carry out the promotion, and that the mere availability of promotion conditions – by seniority, by choice or exceptional – in the employee with the presence of financial grades does not give him the right to be promoted to it by the force of the law, but the matter remains nonetheless left to the discretion of the administration as it deems in agreement. With the need for work and in favor of it and without abuse of power.
Therefore, there is no reason to criticize her for not making the promotion, as long as the law does not require her to undertake the promotion when her conditions are met. The employee’s right is only generated when the management authority exercises its authority by issuing a decision that ignores his promotion and includes others who are newer than him in seniority and less than him and despite the lack of Impediments to promotion, in which case he has the right to contest and appeal against the decision regarding his overstay in promotion.
The appellant’s saying that he fulfills the conditions for promotion and that there is a vacancy for promotion based on seniority is a negative decision to challenge him on the grounds of cancellation. It is a statement that does not conform to the correct rule of law, because promotion decisions, even with seniority, are not obligatory for the management to issue them legally, as it is a matter of the management’s independence in its discretion according to the circumstances of the situation and the requirements of the public interest. And the need to work without comment, and that the management authority always has the right to choose the appropriate time to carry out the promotion.
Accordingly, the appealed judgment has met the correct ruling of the law, and the appeal against it is not based on a legal basis that requires rejection.