"Constitutionality" The employee is obligated to make an excuse for his discretion for thirty days
The Supreme Constitutional Court, today, Saturday, headed by Counselor Paul Fahmy Iskandar- President of the Court, & nbsp; With the unconstitutionality of the text of Clause (6) of Article (69) of the Civil Service Law issued by Law No. 81 of 2016, while it was not included in the authorization of the employee whose service ends to stop work without permission thirty days that are not connected in the year, providing an excuse for the periods of interruption that he did not make an excuse. To him established a conclusive legal presumption that the employee who has ended his service for this reason has provided for every period of the unequivocal period of interruption, an excuse, which is a presumption that is not based on objective foundations, and by which the employee is closed to proving that the interruption in any of his previous periods of the completion of the thirty days was an excuse, and the consequent prevention of the administration from the implementation of its discretionary authority in accepting this The excuse. He signs him in the sludge of violating the provisions of Articles (4, 9, 12, 13, 14, 53 and 94) of the constitution.
& nbsp;
& nbsp;
