"... The courts must carefully examine claims in which monetary relief is requested and in which the plaintiff objects to one administrative decision or another of the authority. Only in those cases where it is an indirect attack will the jurisdiction of the civil court be recognized. However, in those cases where in practice it is a direct attack on the administrative decision, it is not possible to circumvent the administrative petition process, with the procedures established in respect thereof, by means of manipulative wording of the statement of claims" (ibid., at para. 6).
It was further determined in the circumstances of that case that the claim regarding the illegality of the administrative decision was only one layer in the respondent's arguments and not the substance of the claim. Therefore, the court classified it as an authentic indirect assault which must be determined according to the remedy test. Is this the case in our case?
- A perusal of the statement of claim submitted by the respondent to the Magistrate's Court, as well as the decisions of the trial courts regarding the state's motion to dismiss the lawsuit in limine, shows that we are not dealing with a claim that meets the conditions of indirect assault that allow it to be heard in a civil court. Most, if not all, of the respondent's claims relate to the conduct of the police in matters related to his recruitment, training, placement in the position, and his dismissal. In this way, the respondent complains that he was recruited for a position different from the one he was allegedly promised, his candidacy for another position was rejected improperly, and there were flaws in his dismissal process. It is clear that all of the respondent's arguments regarding the conduct of the police relate to the issues mentioned in section 93A of the Police Ordinance , which is as follows:
93a. (a) An action that objects to the use of the powers given under this Ordinance with respect to the appointment of a senior police officer, the appointment of a police officer to the position, his transfer from one position to another or from one place to another, his promotion or demotion from rank, his suspension from his position, his dismissal from the corps, the extension of his service due to an emergency, his occupation of work outside his duties within the framework of the police, or his discharge from service - shall not be considered as a claim arising from an employee-employer relationship for the purpose of section 24 of the Labor Courts Law. 1969.