Employment contract with appointed employee treated as appointment if authorized organ concluded it.

The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for reinstatement and back pay, quashing the lower court's judgment. The plaintiff argued she was employed under appointment based on the Head of the Supreme Control Authority's approval, but the lower court found the Department Director lacked authority to conclude the contract. The Supreme Court held that the Department Director's signature was insufficient for an appointment, requiring the Head's direct authorization, and remanded the case to determine if the relationship was actually an appointment or a contract.