Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the appeal had been clearly defined and that there was no need for further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the motion to file additional pleadings and additional evidence since the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any existence of exceptional circumstances that justified the need to file additional pleadings or to submit additional evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion only presented factual and legal contentions that reiterated arguments made in the appeal brief. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Appellant had failed in his grounds of appeal to identify any errors of fact, law, jurisdiction, procedure, or competence on the part of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had just repeated the arguments presented before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and found that the appeal had no merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision advising that he was ineligible for a National Professional Officer (NPO) post and was thus excluded from the recruitment process because he allegedly lacked relevant experience. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the additional evidence submitted with the Applicant¡¯s closing submissions did not constitute substantive proof of verifiable work experience in the relevant field and did not affect the outcome of his case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Administration had correctly assessed and calculated both the Applicant¡¯s post-qualification experience, and relevant professional experience. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that there was no evidence that the new Chief Civilian Personnel Officer¡¯s evaluation of the Applicant¡¯s work experience was biased or that she intended to exclude him from the recruitment process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant did not have any legal entitlement or legitimate expectation to be awarded the Position just because he had taken the written test and had been interviewed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further rejected all other claims.
Legal Principle(s)
In instances where the eligibility criteria have been wrongly applied, the Administration has a duty and is entitled to rectify its own error. The Administration is entitled to correct erroneous decisions.