The Administrative Court issued nine separate rulings that voided the appointments after reviewing grievances from overlooked candidates who had outperformed others in the original testing phase. A dedicated investigation committee had documented multiple breaches of standard examination protocols, including the appearance of applicants’ names and civil identification numbers on answer sheets visible to graders. The court, presided over by Counselor Mohammed Bahman, determined that such practices undermined principles of transparency and equal opportunity in public sector hiring.
Court documents indicate that administrators reduced the written test passing threshold from 12 points to 10 points without justification tied to the public interest. This adjustment allowed individuals who failed to meet the original standard to advance to interviews while displacing higher-scoring Kuwaiti nationals. The Administrative Court assessment found that the change facilitated favoritism rather than addressing any legitimate administrative need.
The investigation committee report, referenced throughout the rulings, confirmed that secrecy protocols for examinations were disregarded in multiple cases. Committee members established that these deviations occurred during the grading stage, raising concerns about impartiality in the selection of legal professionals for sensitive government advisory roles. According to the judgment, such lapses violated established civil service regulations designed to protect merit-based appointments.
Public sector employment data from the Central Statistical Bureau shows that more than 6,800 Kuwaitis remain registered as unemployed with the Civil Service Commission, underscoring the importance of fair competition for government positions. University graduates account for a significant portion of these job seekers, with women comprising the majority in that category. The court’s decisions align with broader efforts to restore confidence in recruitment processes amid sustained demand for public sector roles.
In its detailed reasoning, the Administrative Court stated that the administration had turned away from legality and equality by endorsing the flawed procedure. The rulings emphasized that the original test standards existed to identify the most qualified candidates for positions requiring high legal competence. By reinstating the affected candidates’ rights, the court aimed to rectify the harm inflicted on national competencies through improper practices.
Officials within the Department of Fatwa and Legislation had initially defended the score adjustment as a means to increase participation in the interview stage. The Administrative Court rejected this explanation, noting that it directly contradicted the goal of selecting the most capable individuals. The decisions require relevant authorities to revisit the entire appointment cycle in line with established legal standards.
The rulings arrive as Kuwait continues to address youth unemployment, with Central Statistical Bureau figures placing the largest group of job seekers in the 20-to-29 age bracket. Legal experts anticipate that the judgments will influence future recruitment oversight across government entities. The court has called for stricter adherence to examination secrecy and merit criteria in all subsequent hiring rounds.
