Abstract The general rule is that ordinary individuals are not entitled to exercise the functions of the public service without appointment, authorization or assignment, because they  are then rapists and all their actions are invalid. However, that rule is replied by exceptions, including the so-called actual employee theory, which justifies the need for an ordinary public facility to manage a vital public facility without taking up the function by the legally prescribed means,exercising all the powers of the post and issuing the administrative decisions that entitle it to it so that its actions are considered legitimate, in exceptional circumstances, and the justification for ensuring the functioning of public facilities. Some of them are the so-called theory of the apparent employee, who engages in the functions of the public service in normal circumstances, without any legitimate basis, and is justified by the French judiciary to protect the other good faith dealing with him, and all his actions depend on the proof of the good will of the individuals dealing with him, regardless of the intention of that person usurping power. The research deals with the distinction between the actual employee and the apparent employee, to clarify the confusion between them, and the use of one as a synonym for the other, despite the fundamental differences between them, the two theories of the creation of the French Council of State, and the approaches of the Egyptian Council of State and administrative courts (Ombudsperson's office) in Saudi Arabia. The research also addresses the validity of their respective legal actions. Key words: public ،actual ،employee، apparent ،track