Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that: the Appellant had responded in the negative to two questions about his experience in the pre-screening questions, but that he was long-listed; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had decided that the hiring manager did not commit a procedural error in not evaluating all candidates, but took into consideration the objective criteria i. e. the years of experience required; the Administration was in a position to justify its decisions as not arbitrary; and the Appellant failed to meet his burden of proving the alleged discrimination. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal expressed disagreement with the impugned judgment, was repetitive and that there were no new arguments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was an attempt to have a hearing de novo of the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested his non-selection for a post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the application.
Legal Principle(s)
Before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, it is not sufficient for an appellant to state that he or she disagrees with the outcome of the case or repeat the arguments submitted before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The appellant has the burden of satisfying Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT that the judgment rendered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is defective and it follows that the appellant must identify the alleged defects in the judgment and state the grounds relied upon in asserting that the judgment is defective.