Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s interpretation of the relevant jurisprudence was correct and that it did not commit any error in law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT took care to examine the evidence in order to ascertain if, in fact, an express promise of renewal had been made to the Appellant. Noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was unable to find any such evidence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s submissions regarding his work experience, duties, and responsibilities, functions of his duty station, and his interest in a renewal had no merit as grounds for an expectancy of renewal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision was correctly based on the applicable law and the available evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed any error, whether of law, fact or procedure, in concluding that he had not produced any evidence capable of amounting to a promise of renewal. On the question of whether the decision not to renew the appointment was improperly motivated or discriminatory, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion was consistent with the evidence and the Appellant had not put forward any persuasive grounds to warrant interference by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not established any error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination that the fact that the other staff members remained in service did not have any impact on the legality of the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had failed to establish that the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment was tainted by improper motives or discriminatory. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision was a legitimate exercise of the Administration¡¯s discretion, based on operational realities, and was justified in view of the temporary closure of the office, which rendered the Appellant¡¯s services unnecessary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.