Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was disingenuous for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA to suggest that the Appellant¡¯s transfer application was considered in the same manner as the two candidates who were selected from the roster. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT failed to properly exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and erred in law in failing to have regard to the Appellant¡¯s due process entitlements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law in relying on the authority of the Director of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Affairs, Lebanon, to reject the Appellant¡¯s application for assignment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not uphold the contention that the Appellant had a legitimate expectation of succeeding the post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in fact in accepting the private assessment of the Director of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Affairs, Lebanon, of the Appellant and that this error was such that it led to a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that there was merit in the Appellant¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not inquire into the circumstances which culminated, effectively, in excluding him from consideration for the position, such that the full and fair consideration to which he was entitled did not materialise. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that the lost chance of being selected, even if slight, and the loss of a better chance of being recommended or included in the roster had material and financial consequences. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal in part and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT ordered rescission of the contested decision or, in the alternative, payment of USD 10,000 in compensation for the loss of chance of being considered for the position.