The administrative legislator, aiming to enable the administrative authority to undertake its vested competences optimally, has endowed it with the power to make decisions based on its discretionary authority. These decisions should be made in light of what it deems appropriate for achieving the public interest. However, this authority is not absolute and must be exercised within the framework of legality and legal rules. If the authority exceeds its granted power, the administrative judiciary exercises its oversight by examining the legality and appropriateness of these decisions. Therefore, this thesis aims to shed light on judicial oversight concerning appropriateness, elucidating the reasons that prompted the administrative judiciary to innovate this oversight. It also aims to highlight its advantages and disadvantages, and the supporting and opposing jurisprudential views. The study primarily seeks to illustrate the approach taken by the comparative judiciary regarding oversight of appropriateness and compare it with the approach of the administrative judiciary in the Sultanate of Oman concerning its oversight of the appropriateness of administrative acts after recent amendments to the competences of the Administrative Court pursuant to Royal Decree No. 23/2022. The decree states, "The court's authority in overseeing administrative decisions is limited to examining their legality without addressing their appropriateness." This is analyzed through the principles and administrative judgments issued in this regard. The study concluded that administrative legislations vary regarding the administrative judiciary's jurisdiction over the oversight of appropriateness. Some jurisdictions have granted this power to the judiciary, while others have not. The Egyptian judiciary, when confronted with the excessive and arbitrary exercise of discretionary power by the administrative authority, took a successful step by extending its oversight to include appropriateness, thereby providing an additional guarantee to protect individual rights and freedoms. The Egyptian judiciary now examines the appropriateness of administrative measures relative to the facts. Conversely, the administrative judiciary in the Sultanate of Oman chose not to follow the Egyptian approach, adopting a different path by refraining from intervening in the discretionary power of the administration, thus leaving it free to choose and assess what it deems appropriate. However, this freedom is not absolute but surrounded by several controls, primarily ensuring that the assessment is appropriate to the circumstances. If the administration exceeds in its assessment excessively or inadequately, it deviates from the public interest and violates legality, making its decision subject to annulment. The thesis recommends that the Omani legislator, when issuing the Public Employment Law, explicitly stipulate the necessity for administrative sanctions to be proportionate to the violation committed by the employee. It also recommends that the Omani legislator explicitly include a provision requiring the administrative authority to consider appropriateness where a text grants it discretionary power. Furthermore, it suggests a legislative amendment to grant urgent status to lawsuits challenging administrative control decisions due to their impact on individual rights and freedoms. Finally, it recommends that judicial decisions declaring such administrative decisions invalid be given immediate enforceability by law.