The aforesaid regarding the power to dismiss is just as true, and even more, when it comes to non-extension of service and not dismissal. As noted in relation to a similar service format in the police, "... The recruit knows, as the legislature commands, that his service will not be extended at the end of the five years if he does not meet the relevant standards."High Court of Justice 1524/06 Staff Sergeant Anonymous vs. Police Commissioner Rabbi Moshe Karadi, [Posted inNevo] Paragraph 12 (July 20, 2006)). It should be precise, contrary to the appellant's argument, even though the practical result from his point of view is identical, None This is a dismissal.
- Indeed, the ways in which the IPS Commissioner's discretion with respect to the management of personnel in the Prison Service in accordance with Sections 80 and 85 of the Ordinance are subject to judicial review in terms of their compliance with the rules of administrative law. The guidelines for guiding the Commissioner's discretion in the framework of IPS service extension procedures are set out in the IPS Service Periods Procedure. In accordance with Section 5 of the Procedure, a prison guard's commanders will maintain ongoing monitoring of a prison guard's performance throughout his years of service, and will compile information regarding various interviews conducted for the prison guard, disciplinary records, criminal proceedings, and any other relevant information that can assist in formulating a decision regarding the extension of his service. In section 6 of the procedure, the criteria for evaluating the functioning of a prison guard are as follows:
"6.1 The criteria for evaluating a prison guard during the period of service will be based on a set of data as detailed in section 5 above and will focus on four issues (details of the criteria in Appendix A):
6.1.1 Evaluation of performance of the job.
6.1.2 Disciplinary Proceeding/Criminal Proceeding.
6.1.3 Security risk due to economic or other background.