There is no doubt that the smooth running of public facilities and their continued provision of the best services and achievement of the objectives for which they were established rests squarely on the shoulders of public administration. Their operations can only proceed with competent employees and workers capable of completing their duties properly and in the best possible manner. They are the fundamental pillar in achieving the tasks assigned to them. Hence, the state's concern for its employees, selecting them based on sound principles, and ensuring they maintain the required competence throughout their careers. Losing this competence renders their continued employment, if not harmful to the public interest, at least useless. This authority grants the administration the right to terminate the services of a probationary employee if they prove unsuitable for the job, without compensation or prior warning in some cases. However, this right must be exercised in accordance with the law, while ensuring that the abuse of power is not abused. Given the importance of this method in terminating employment relationships, legislation and the judiciary have provided certain guarantees to ensure that the administration does not abuse its authority and that protection is provided for the probationary employee.

• First: The Importance of the Study: The importance of the study lies in enhancing the regular and steady operation of the public service to satisfy public needs and achieve the objectives of public administration through the selection of the most appropriate personnel

• Second: The Problem of the Study: The problem of the study lies in the discretionary power of management       to     terminate    the      employment 

relationship of a probationary    employee, a   sensitive    issue with legal, administrative, and social dimensions. The fundamental problem lies in how to achieve a balance between the management's right ensure the competence and quality of employees' performance within the organization, and ensuring the rights of employees and protecting them from arbitrary decisions

• Third: The Hypothesis of the Study: Management has the authority to terminate the services of a probationary employee to ensure efficiency and quality of work, ensuring the regular and steady operation of the public service to satisfy public needs. However, this authority requires careful regulation to protect employee rights and prevent administrative abuse of power

• Third: The Study Methodology: We utilized an analytical approach, as well as a comparison with the positions of legal systems in some countries and the opinions of jurists. These approaches aim to study the legal texts related to the management's authority to terminate the employment of a probationary employee, and analyze them to understand the rules and regulations governing this authority and administrative practices in various work environments. As well as the judicial decisions relevant to this topic

• Fourth: Study Plan: We divided this study into three sections. The first section addresses the concept of a public employee, the second section addresses employees subject to termination of service for professional incompetence, and the third section addresses judicial oversight of decisions to terminate service for professional incompetence, followed by a conclusion

Part One

The Concept of the Public Employee: The public employee is of particular importance in ensuring the smooth and steady operation of public services, meeting public needs, achieving justice and equality in the provision of services, and representing the state and its institutions before citizens. Therefore, we will divide this section into two sections. The first section will address the definition of the public employee, and the second section will address the concept of professional incompetence.

First Requirement: Definition of Public Employee

Administrative workers are generally referred to as "public employees" in all modern countries. However, the legal system governing their relationship is different. In many countries, there is a single set of laws that all workers are required to follow, with the exception of certain professions for which the government has established special provisions. In some countries, more than one legal system exists. For example, government employees in one country are bound by one legal system and another set of laws and regulations. Law No. 67 of 1971 on Religious and Charitable Institutions defines the term "employee" as follows, among other things, in laws relating to certain types of employers: "Any person entrusted with a position within the staff of religious and charitable institutions." Article 1 of the Iraqi Republic Railways Service Regulations No. 22 of 1966 defines an employee as "any person entrusted with a permanent position within the staff of the employee service department." The Civil Service Law of 1931 defined public employees in Article 2 as "any person assigned a position in the government in return for a salary received from the general budget or a special budget subject to retirement provisions." Article 2 of Civil Service Law No. 64 of 1939, as amended by the legislator, stipulated that "an employee is anyone assigned a permanent position among the state employees." The Iraqi legislator used this term in Civil Service Law No. 55 of 1956. In contrast to the previous Civil Service Law, the now-repealed State Employees Disciplinary Law No. 69 of 1936 provided a different definition of employee. Paragraph (a) of Article 1 stipulates that an employee is “every person who has been assigned a position in the government in return for a salary received from the general budget or a special budget and subject to the provisions of the Retirement Law. An employee was also defined in Article 2 of the Civil Service Law No. (24) of 1960 (an employee is every person assigned a permanent position within the special staff of employees) (Article (2) of the Civil Service Law). These definitions raised questions in jurisprudence about the application of the description of employee to some (state) workers, and who is included in the aforementioned definition. This made it necessary to clarify the standard of a public employee. The reason for these questions and interest in the standard of a public employee was the existence of different categories of workers in the service of public utilities, whether they were state departments or the public sector. Employees are subject to special service rules, workers are subject to the Labor Law, and there was a third category: employees. However, after the legislator abolished the category of employees by virtue of the decisions of the dissolved Revolutionary Command Council 518 of 1973 and 911 of 1976, he unified the status of employees in the state and the public sector. He made them all employees, after he had turned the workers into employees. The dissolved Revolutionary Command Council issued in 1987 Decision No. 150, a decision to turn the workers into employees. Article One of the decision stipulated that all workers in government departments and the public sector are considered employees and are equal in rights and duties [1].

The conditions required for applicants for public office, as stipulated in Article 7 of the Civil Service Law No. 24 of 1960 (as amended), are: Only those who are appointed for the first time to a government position may be appointed:

• An Iraqi or a naturalized person who has been naturalized for at least five years

• Completed eighteen years of age, and for nurses, sixteen

• Passed a medical examination and free from any physical or mental illness or disability that would prevent them from performing the position for which they were 

• appointed by a decision of the competent medical authorities in accordance with the Special Regulations

• Of good morals and conduct, and not convicted of a non-political felony or a misdemeanor affecting honor, such as theft, embezzlement, forgery, or fraud

• Holds a recognized educational certificate (Article (7) of the Civil Service Law)

The Second Requirement: The Concept of Professional Incompetence

The First Section: Definition of Professional Incompetence: Professional competence is one of the most important common topics between administrative law and public administration. Public administration scholars have sought the means to achieve it in employees, whereas administrative law has been content with defining the impact of it lack.

First: Definition of Competence in Linguistics

Competence in Linguistics: From the root word "kafa" (enough), meaning "to be sufficient." Among its meanings: that which enables one to dispense with something else. It is said, "I was satisfied with something," meaning I was satisfied with it. This is based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family): "Whoever recites the last two verses of Surat Al-Baqarah at night, they will suffice him." This also includes: undertaking a task. It is said, "I was satisfied with an affair, so he sufficed me," meaning he fulfilled my role [2]. It is also said, "The affair sufficed him," meaning he fulfilled his role, thus, "He is sufficient and sufficient (Mohammed Al-Adnani,1989:582)." This is based on the Almighty's saying: "Is not Allah sufficient for His servant?" Including: filling the gap, meaning the need, and achieving the desired goal. It is said: He provided for him his needs, it suffices him sufficiency, and from this comes sufficiency: which is what is sufficient for a person to live. Al-Kuf`: similar, strong, and able to manage the work. (plural) ikfā`, and kifā`. Competence: (It is said: He has no equal: He has no equal. Competence: similarity in strength and honor, and (for work): the ability to perform it and its good management.)

He who says: So-and-so is qualified to fill this important position is wrong, because qualified only means similar and comparable. He cited as evidence the Almighty's statement in Surat Al-Ikhlas: (And there is none comparable to Him). The correct meaning is "knowledgeable and sufficient," meaning someone with competence, not "competence." Therefore, we cannot use "competent" to mean someone who is strong and capable of handling the work.

The linguistic meaning of the word "competence" implies its relativity and diversity due to the difference in goals and the variance of the needs that need to be satisfied and fulfilled. This is what management scholars concluded in their attempts to define the meaning of competence. Competence is not an end in itself; it does not determine whether the work itself is valuable, but rather it demonstrates how well the work is performed and serves as a measure and standard of performance.

Second: Definition of Competency Technically

The word "competence" is used in several fields and is common to various disciplines. Competence is used in the field of psychology, which is concerned with the study of an individual's internal and external behavior (cognitive, mental, and motor competencies). It is also used in job and individual analysis to determine the competencies available in a particular position and the competencies required to fill it. It is also used as a method for vocational training, teaching, and learning. Therefore, the definition of competency is diverse and varies depending on the concepts and contexts used by researchers [4].

The following are two definitions related to the concept of professional competency:

• Professional competency is an individual's ability to utilize their acquired knowledge to practice a job, trade, or profession according to specific and recognized requirements in the world of work

• One definition of competency is the ability to employ an individual's knowledge and abilities in new contexts, within their chosen career path. Competence also includes work planning and organization, creativity, and the ability to adapt to new situations. Competence also includes the personal qualities necessary for effective interaction with colleagues, supervisors, and clients [4].

Section Two: Examples of Professional Incompetence

Examples of professional incompetence are numerous, some of which may be close to disciplinary violations, but are not disciplinary offenses. They are repetitive and include the following:

• First: Employee's Professional Incompetence: Professional incompetence refers to an employee's poor performance. This is a personal matter related to the employee himself, his skills, and his technical knowledge of the tasks and duties assigned to him, as well as their requirements and related fields. The French State Council ruled that the decision to dismiss a midwife was legal due to her professional incompetence in midwifery and her failure to confront difficult and urgent situations in this field. The Administrative Court of Appeal in Nancy also ruled to dismiss a Spanish language teacher due to her weak educational and linguistic capabilities [5].

• Second: An Employee's Failure to Perform Assigned Tasks: By failing to perform assigned tasks, we mean that the employee does not perform the tasks satisfactorily, or fails to do so. Despite their ambition, the employee's performance should be characterized by effectiveness. Competence is not the same as effectiveness. Competence refers to performing the work correctly and satisfactorily, while effectiveness refers to performing tasks accurately and achieving the highest levels of performance and creativity at work. The minimum requirement of an employee is to perform their work in a manner that satisfies management and the public 

• directly benefiting from their work. Failure to do so means they have lost their professional competence.

• Third: An Employee's Failure to Organize Their Work: An employee's failure to organize their assigned work is a reason for dismissal due to professional incompetence or failure to maintain proper records and equipment. Therefore, the French Council of State ruled that a mayor's decision to dismiss a municipal secretary was legitimate due to her demonstrated a genuine inability to organize her work. The Paris Administrative Court of Appeal also ruled that a decision to dismiss a mathematics teacher was legal due to his inability to organize his work content and pedagogically [5].

• Fourth: Poor Execution of the Work Assigned to a Public Employee: Poor execution of the work assigned to a public employee, repeated errors made by the employee during the performance of their duties, or poor conduct in the situations they encounter.

• Fifth: Employee Incompetence: An employee's inability to communicate, their lack of ability and enthusiasm to complete the tasks assigned to them, as well as the weakness or inadequacy of the research capabilities of employees working in the field of scientific research (http://www.conseil-etat.fr/fr/base-de-jurisprudence).

• Sixth: Inability To Form Professional Relationships and Ties: The inability to form professional relationships and ties may include an employee's direct or indirect opposition to their administrative superiors, their refusal to carry out certain assigned tasks, or their difficulty forming relationships with their superiors and colleagues, such as their bad temper and their inability to deal with others. These behaviors may simultaneously constitute disciplinary violations that justify the imposition of a disciplinary penalty. Therefore, confusion may arise between behaviors that constitute disciplinary violations and behaviors that constitute professional incompetence, justifying the administration's termination of an employee's service, particularly during the probationary period, when the employee is new to service. Therefore, in order to distinguish between them, the French State Council ruled that incompetence or incompetence in professional relationships and ties that justify the dismissal of a public employee can only occur through repeated behaviors that demonstrate this incompetence, and it is not possible to rely on an individual case in this regard (Dissolved Revolutionary Command Council Resolution No. 313 of 1988)

Part Two: Employee Subject to Termination for Professional Incompetence

An employee's inability to perform their job duties adequately due to a deficiency in the skills, knowledge, or experience necessary to achieve their job objectives. Therefore, we will divide this section into two sections. The first section examines the employee on probation, and the second examines the permanent employee.

First Requirement: Probationary Employee

First Section: Definition of a Probationary Employee: Definition of a Probationary Employee: A probationary employee is defined as any person appointed to a permanent position in an administrative facility by a competent authority for a legally specified period. Upon expiry of this period, the administration has the discretion to confirm or dismiss the employee in the position they hold. The administration's decision not to confirm their appointment is subject to oversight by the administrative judiciary. The Egyptian Supreme Administrative Court recently issued a ruling defining an employee's probationary period as a suspended position. During this period, the employee's legal status in the position is uncertain; the administrative authority decides whether or not they can remain on probation. The court also clarified that the purpose of the probationary period is to keep the employee under observation, not to determine their qualifications for the government work assigned to them. The rationale behind placing an employee on probation is to assess their job competency and ability to perform their duties by monitoring their behavior. If the administration confirms their job competency, they confirm them in the public position. If the contrary is proven, the law allows them to dispense with them. An employee on probation is considered a public employee, according to the prevailing opinion of Islamic jurisprudence. However, it is not considered a stable position for him unless the probation period ends and his worthiness is proven, so he is confirmed in his job. He may lose his employee status if his worthiness or professionalism is not proven and his ability in the job granted to him is not proven [6]. The reason behind putting him on probation and the wisdom behind it is to ensure his professional abilities and sufficiency in the job and to carry it out by monitoring his performance, behavior, work ethics and everything that might affect the public job, and this is not proven except by actually working in the job to which he was initially appointed [5].

Section Two: Employees on Probation in Iraqi Legislation

Article 14 of the Civil Service Law No. 24 of 1960, as amended, states:

• Upon initial appointment, an employee shall be on probation for a period of one year of actual service. An order shall be issued confirming the employee in his grade after the expiry of the probation period if his competence is confirmed. Otherwise, his probation period shall be extended for another six months

An employee shall be dismissed if his department determines that he is unsuitable for the assigned job during the probationary period stipulated in Paragraph (1) of this Article(Article 14 of the Civil Service Law)

The employee shall be required to complete a one-year probationary period after his initial appointment to prove to the employing administration that he is capable and suitable for the job. Once the one-year period has elapsed and his competence has been verified, an order will be issued confirming him in the assigned grade. If this is not verified, the probationary period will be extended for an additional six months. Furthermore, the employee shall be removed from his position if his administration determines during his probationary period that he is unsuitable for the job. Within thirty days of being notified of the decision, the employee shall have the opportunity to submit an objection to the General Disciplinary Board. An appeal may be filed with the General Authority of the Court of Cassation against the decision of the General Disciplinary Board within thirty days of the notification date. The decisions of the Disciplinary Board and the Court of Cassation, which are issued as a result of appeals during that period, are final and binding. However, the employee's services shall continue until the specified period has elapsed and the administration has not decided to terminate his service. He shall be considered confirmed in his position by law, and the administration may not subsequently terminate his employment. His service, based on its powers to terminate it during the probationary period, pursuant to Council Resolutions No. (28/40) dated March 24, 1982, and (79/181) dated June 18, 1979 [1].

The State Shura Council believes that the provision to dispense with an employee on probation, as stipulated in the law, is a right of the state, which applies to an employee who is unsuitable for the job to which he was appointed [7]. Legislators specify a probationary period for newly appointed employees or, in certain circumstances, for reappointed employees [8]. During this period, he remains under the supervision and oversight of the administration to verify his suitability to perform the duties of his position, whereby his continued employment is contingent upon successful completion of this period. This period does not apply to those occupying special grades, as those occupying them must have long service and experience in their job [9] Furthermore, the administration has broad discretionary authority to terminate the service of an employee on probation, as it may dispense with him if it is determined that he is unsuitable for the job to which he was appointed during the probationary period (Resolution No. 477/Discipline/Distinction/2010 ).

The administration may take the decision to dismiss a probationary employee is motivated by several reasons, which can be derived from numerous facts. The administration uses the employee's file and reports submitted during the probationary period to assist in this. It is preferable to document everything related to the employee's behavior and performance during this period in writing, given the sensitivity of their work during this period. This is to ensure their rights, on the one hand, and to facilitate the administration's task of proving their point of view later, on the other hand, as this may be the subject of a future dispute should the administration decide to dismiss the employee [10].

The administration is not obligated to conduct a specific investigation, interrogate the employee, or hear witness testimony. It may rely on the penalties imposed on the employee due to violations committed during the probationary period, especially if they are repeated and indicate a lack of competence and suitability for the position (Article 22 of the State Civil Service Law No. 47 of 1978).

The position of Iraqi law differs from that of Egyptian law in this regard. According to Egyptian legislation, senior management must review the form. Prepared by the unit after direct supervisors report the suitability of the probationary employee. Based on the employee's performance during the probationary period, a final report is prepared indicating their suitability for the job at the end of the probationary period. The Personnel Affairs Committee is the body responsible for receiving this information [11].

The Second Requirement: Provisional Employee

Decision No. 550 issued by the dissolved Revolutionary Command Council in 1987 stipulates that the relevant minister and the head of a department not affiliated with a ministry may dispense with the services of an incompetent employee, provided they are given a three-month grace period before their dismissal. They may be appointed to other state departments and socialist sectors if they meet the conditions and qualifications specified by those departments. It is clear that this decision does not apply to employees on probation, but rather to permanent employees. Furthermore, this decision does not specify specific categories of employees, but rather applies to all employees, regardless of their positions or grades (Article 39, Fifth, of the Judicial Organization Law No. 160 of 1979 ). Article 39, paragraph 5, of the Judicial Organization Law No. 160 of 1979 also stipulates: A judge's service may be terminated or transferred to a civil service by presidential decree based on a decision by the Supreme Judicial Council and a proposal from the President of the Judicial Council, if his promotion has been postponed more than twice consecutively in the same grade [12]. The termination or transfer decision is issued by presidential decree based on a decision by the Justice Council and a proposal from the Minister of Justice. This was in effect until 2003. Coalition Provisional Authority Order No. 35 of 2003 re-established the Supreme Judicial Council, which would be responsible for and oversee the judicial system in Iraq independently of the Ministry of Justice. Therefore, jurisdiction in the case presented to the Supreme Judicial Council is vested in the Council. Iraqi law does not specify the method for terminating the service of employees with special grades [13] and there are no general rules for this. Decision No. 588 of 1987, which was dissolved by the Revolutionary Command Council, stipulates that any employee at the level of Director General or above who is transferred from his position due to failure to perform his duties shall be reinstated at a lower grade than the one he held prior to his appointment to the position of Director General or above, without the need to specify this in the transfer decision. Foreign

Service Law No. 45 of 2008 stipulates that an ambassador shall be investigated in matters other than those affecting state security by a committee formed by the Minister, headed by the relevant Undersecretary, and including the head of the Legal Department and one of the ambassadors. If the investigation proves that the ambassador is unqualified to serve in the diplomatic corps or that his continued presence would be detrimental to the interests of the work, the Minister shall request the Prime Minister to terminate his service and either retire him or transfer him from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Dissolved Revolutionary Command Council Resolution No. 588 of 1987). The permissibility of terminating or dismissing senior state employees is stipulated in many comparative legal texts, such as the French Civil Service Law of 1959, which stipulates that a general list shall be established for each department or agency regarding senior positions, the appointment of which shall be left to the government's discretion. It also emphasized that appointments therein shall remain essentially subject to dismissal, whether they relate to employees or non-employees. The decision issued on July 24, 1985, defined senior positions and replaced previous decisions in this area. Whereas the employees in all departments (commissioners, general delegates, general directors, central departments, and in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the original heads of diplomatic missions and those of them with the rank of ambassadors, the directors of public police facilities in the Ministry of the Interior, and the directors of academies in the Ministry of National Education) were determined without prejudice to the application of the provisions related to determining the conditions of appointment, and the French legislator assigned the authority to terminate the service of those occupying senior positions to the Council of Ministers based on the proposal of the minister [14].

Part Three: Judicial Oversight of Termination Decisions Due to Professional Incompetence

Judicial oversight is the right of courts to review administrative decisions to ensure their compliance with applicable laws and regulations and to ensure that authority is not abused. Judicial oversight is also a means of protecting employees from unfair decisions and ensuring their rights are respected. Therefore, we will divide this section into two sections: the first section deals with judicial oversight of decisions to terminate the service of a probationary employee, and the second section deals with judicial oversight of decisions to terminate the service of a permanent employee.

First Requirement: Judicial Oversight of Decisions to Terminate a Probationary Employee

The placement of an employee on probation is subject to the discretion of the administration, allowing it to terminate their service if they deem them unqualified for the position. The Egyptian Supreme Administrative Court ruled in this regard that "dismissing an employee for incompetence during the probationary period falls within the discretionary power of the administration and is a matter left to its discretion." The Jordanian Supreme Court of Justice also ruled that "we found" that the legislature granted the government the authority to supervise an employee's performance and adaptation to their new job for a period of one year after their initial probationary appointment [4]. The purpose of this oversight is to determine whether the employee is qualified to continue working or whether their service is terminated. The administration is bound by the timing of issuing a decision to terminate the service of an employee placed on probation, and in this regard, it is subject to the oversight of the administrative judiciary. It is obligated to issue a decision to dismiss the employee upon the end of the probationary period after the extension of the period, i.e., after the year and six months specified by law. Otherwise, the administration's silence and the expiration of the specified period result in the employee being considered confirmed in their job. Therefore, a decision to terminate an employee's service after the end of the probationary period is considered a violation of the law. Because the employee becomes permanently employed in his job upon its expiry, and this is what has been repeatedly stated by judicial rulings [15]. It is not permissible, after the probationary period has passed, to treat an employee as if he is still on probation, awaiting a decision to confirm him. Adopting this understanding contradicts legal logic and the wisdom of the probationary period. The law stipulates that the administration may not rely on personal reasons or reasons unrelated to the nature of the probationary position and its purpose. Therefore, the French Council of State ruled that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee on probation due to a shortage of employees and without applying the stipulated rules, in the interest of those with higher ranks regarding this type of measure. The Egyptian Supreme Administrative Court ruled in a ruling that “the position of an employee on probation is a suspended job position during that period, as his legal status in the job is not established until the expiration of the suspension period and the employee’s status is resolved by a decision from the administrative body in terms of eligibility to remain in it or not. The probationary period is a period of time during which the legislator intended the employee to remain under the government’s oversight or direct supervision, not a place to judge his suitability to perform the government work assigned to him. The wisdom of placing an employee on probation is to determine His functional competence and ability to perform his duties by monitoring his behavior. If the administration is certain of his functional competence, it will confirm him in the public position. If it is proven otherwise, the law allows it to dispense with him (Resolution No. 880 of 1988, published in the Iraqi Gazette). From the above, it becomes clear to us that the decision to terminate an employee’s service during the probationary period is a decision terminating his services. Therefore, it must be subject to judicial oversight (Paragraph 5 of Article 14 of the Civil Service Law No. 24 of 1960, as amended). This means that there must be a separate judicial body that reviews these decisions, and in which the administration’s authority is restricted from deviating from the use of power [6].

The Second Requirement: Judicial Oversight of Decisions to Terminate the Service of a Permanent Employee

The administration's authority to terminate the services of a permanent public employee due to incompetence is restricted by the procedure prescribed by law. If the administration deviates from this, its decision is deemed flawed and subject to nullification before the Administrative Court. The administration's decisions to terminate an employee's service due to professional incompetence are administrative decisions subject to appeal before the courts. This is confirmed by Article 100 of the 2005 Iraqi Constitution, which prohibits any decision from being immune to appeal. Thus, the prohibition against immunizing administrative decisions from appeal has become a constitutional principle that cannot be violated. The administration's authority to terminate the service of an employee proven to be professionally incompetent is bound by the requirement to adhere to several procedures stipulated by law, and the Administrative Court monitors the administration's compliance with these procedures. The dissolved Revolutionary Command Council Resolution No. 550 of 1989 also permitted the dismissal of an incompetent employee. However, it did not include a text specifying the method for objecting to the administration's decision. However, in this case, the same rules apply to the employee on probation, and jurisdiction in both cases lies with the Civil Service Court. The Jordanian Supreme Court's rulings in this regard have established a distinction between two stages: a stage devoid of legal guarantees, which is the stage in which the employee is on probation and the administration's authority is absolute, with no restrictions or procedures laid down. A second stage in which the employee enjoys legal guarantees, which is the stage following the probation period, in which the administration's authority is restricted and can only be exercised by taking certain measures and verifying the availability of specific conditions [6]. From the above, it can be said that if the administration issues a decision to terminate the services of a public employee, and the employee believes that the decision is illegal and flawed, the employee has the right to file an administrative lawsuit to challenge the administrative decision issued to terminate his services, through what is known as a cancellation lawsuit. In an annulment suit, the administrative judge's role is limited to ensuring that the plaintiff has an interest in annulling the unlawful decision, and examining the legality of the administrative decision [4]. The ruling concludes with proving the legality of the administrative decision under appeal, or proving the unlawfulness of the administrative decision, in which case the administrative decision is annulled and this is tantamount to its nullification [16].

This study examined an important topic in practical life: the discretionary power of management to terminate the employment relationship of a probationary employee. It reached a set of conclusions and suggestions, the most important of which are:

• The probationary period is a vital stage in assessing an employee's competence and suitability for public office

• The administration has the authority to terminate an employee's service due to professional incompetence, as it is responsible for organizing and managing the public service and ensuring its effectiveness and good performance. Therefore, it is its responsibility to select the best candidates for public office and verify their competence, which is left to its discretionary power

• The civil service laws do not address the concept of professional incompetence, as it relates to personal factors and varies from person to person

• The decisions to terminate an employee's service due to professional incompetence are legally protected by a set of procedural and substantive safeguards to achieve their purpose without infringing on the employee's rights. 5- Administrative decisions to terminate an employee's service for professional incompetence are administrative decisions that may be appealed before the courts

Recommendations

• We propose regulating the cases of employee termination for professional incompetence, defining the concept of professional incompetence, and clarifying the forms in which this condition may occur in an employee

• If the competent administration deems the employee professionally incompetent, it must support its claim with evidence from his work record, not his personal feelings. Its authority in this area is not unlimited; rather, it is based on not misusing it. 3- Requiring management to provide reasons for its decisions to terminate employees' services due to professional incompetence. This safeguards the employee and facilitates the administrative judge's task of uncovering the administration's intentions

• Enabling the employee to review reports on their performance and conduct prior to the decision to terminate their service. This allows them to improve their performance and provide feedback. This is what management is required to do, as the authority to terminate an employee's service due to professional incompetence must be informed by a set of safeguards that ensure the administration achieves its goal and does not harm the employee

1. Allawi, Maher Saleh. "The silence of public administration in Iraqi law (a comparative study)." Journal of Legal Sciences, vol. 10, no. 2, 1994.

2. Academy of the Arabic Language. Al-mu'jam al-wasit. 4th ed., Al-Shorouk International Library, 2004.

3. Abdel Hadi, Hamdi Amin. The theory of competence in public service. 1st ed., Dar Al Fikr Al Arabi, 1966.

4. Muhammad, Mubarak Badah. It is the termination of public employee service due to incompetence - a comparative study between Jordanian and Kuwaiti law. Master's thesis, Middle East University, 2011.

5. Shehata, Musa. "Professional incompetence as a reason for dismissal from public service." Journal of Sharia and Law, no. 23, 2005.

6. Saleh, Sara Adnan and Raeda Yassin Khudair. "Termination of employee service due to professional incompetence in Iraqi and comparative law." University of Kirkuk, no. 53, 2023.

7. Hashish, Abdul Hamid Kamal. Studies in public service in the French system. Dar Al Nahda Al Arabiyya, no publication year.

8. Al-Samarrai, Kamil. Administrative judiciary in Iraq. Asad Al-Iraq Press, 1963.

9. Al Jassani, Abdul Rasoul. Fatwas of the State Shura Council. 1987.

10. Al-Dasouqi, Muhammad Ibrahim. Administrative protection of public employees. Dar Al-Nahda Al-Arabiya, 2010.

11. Al Barzanji, Issam et al. Principles and provisions of administrative law. Legal Library, no publication year.

12. Habish, Fawzi. Public administration and administrative organization. 4th ed., Zain Legal Publications, 2007.

13. Al Tamawi, Suleiman. Administrative judiciary. Book three: disciplinary judiciary (a comparative study). Dar Al Fikr Al Arabi, 1979.

14. Mahdi, Ghazi Faisal. "Appointment to senior positions." Journal of Al-Nahrain University, vol. 3, no. 4, 1999.

15. Kanaan, Nawaf. Administrative law. Book two. Dar Al Thaqafa for Publishing and Distribution, 2009.

16. Al-Azmi, Abdullah Saad. Judicial oversight of the termination of public employee services - a comparative study between Jordanian and Kuwaiti law. Master's thesis, Al al-Bayt University.