Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no dispute as to the applicable statutory provision governing the timeliness of the Appellant¡¯s application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT or that management evaluation was not required as the Appellant was challenging a disciplinary measure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione temporis, noting that the Appellant himself acknowledged that his application was untimely. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in not waiving the time limit for him to file the application due to exceptional circumstances, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly applied judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-144 (Thiam) to Article 8(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, but that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it appeared to suggest that a waiver of time limits for filing a late application or appeal could be requested as part of an untimely application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that as the Appellant¡¯s request for waiver was not filed before the statutory time limit for filing the application had lapsed, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no jurisdiction or was not competent to consider whether there were exceptional circumstances to waive the deadline. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it reviewed the reasons provided by the Applicant to determine whether they represented exceptional circumstances to justify the delay in filing the application, however, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this error did not adversely affect the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s ultimate conclusion that the application was not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.