Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

PD A/4/Part II/Rev.7

  • Area Staff Personnel Directive No. A/4/Part II, Rev. 8/Section I
  • IPD 1/10
  • IPD/I/104.4
  • IPD/I/112.6/Rev.1
  • PD 1/4/Part I/Rev.1
  • PD A/10
  • PD A/10/Rev.1
  • PD A/10/Rev.3
  • PD A/17
  • PD A/2/Part.II/Rev. 4
  • PD A/23
  • PD A/3
  • PD A/4/Part II/Rev.7
  • PD A/4/Part VII/Rev.7
  • PD A/5/Part II
  • PD A/5/Rev.7/Part II
  • PD A/6/Amend.12/Part III
  • PD A/6/Amend.72
  • PD A/6/Part II/Amend.2
  • PD A/6/Part VI
  • PD A/60
  • PD A/9
  • PD A/9/Rev.10
  • PD I/104.2
  • PD No.A/3/Rev.1/Part XI/Amend.5
  • PD/A/1/Rev.1/Par1/Section 1
  • PD/A/4/Part II/ Rev.7/Section 1
    • Showing 1 - 5 of 5
    2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1496, Mahmoud Mohamad Zeidan

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had erred in law when it found that the applicable legal framework allowed the interview panel to conduct technical assessments of the candidates. However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the procedural irregularity of the panel having held a second round of interviews of a purely technical nature, would not suffice to grant the appeal because the outcome of the recruitment process would have been the same.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had not erred with regards to the Agency¡¯s failure to correctly apply gender parity rules. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that gender parity had not...

    2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1402, Faten Hatim Al Dawoud

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s reasoning for refusing an oral hearing because the staff member failed to establish that her appeal was receivable, was ex post facto and, thereby, erroneous.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was an error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s calculation of compensation in lieu of rescission of the non-selection decision as there was no evidence to support the conclusion that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA would have found her unsuitable for the role at the end of the probationary period.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s methodology of fixing...

    2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1350, Ismail Said Abu Hatab

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly exercised its broad discretion with regard to its case management in concluding that the record before it was sufficient to render a decision without an oral hearing. It concluded that the Appellant has not presented any grounds as to why an oral hearing would have been necessary and thus did not show that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT exercised its discretion in such manner as to affect the outcome of the case, as required by Article 2(1)(d) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute.

    With regard to the Appellant¡¯s argument that the non-selection decision was unlawful because...

    2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-779, Abu Hweidi et al.

    ArÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision not to hold an oral hearing was a shortcoming since the parties had not agreed to the case being decided on the papers and the facts needed to be established by witnesses and/or further documentary evidence. On the question of bias and its possible bearing on the outcome of the selection process, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT should have engaged in a thorough examination of the facts, rather than drawing an inference. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the inference drawn by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, that it was realistic to conclude that not all of the posts could be filled by suitable candidates...

    2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-964, Mahmoud

    On the Appellant¡¯s complaint that the non-selection decision was tainted by procedural irregularity and bias, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the presence of two directors from the Education Department on the interview panel did not offend Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s regulatory framework. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was possible to infer reasonably from the interview panel¡¯s analysis and its sympathetic view of the Appellant that, on the probabilities, it was not prejudiced against her on the basis alleged. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was evident from the seniority of the position and the role that the incumbent of the post would be required to...