Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not make any errors of law or fact in dismissing the Appellant¡¯s application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no reason to differ from the conclusion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA could not have considered the Appellant as having the requisite international experience. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT gave careful and fair consideration to the Appellant¡¯s arguments regarding the required international experience for the post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to discharge his burden of proving through clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance of selection. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the selection exercise should be based on the assessment of the candidates¡¯ academic qualifications and work experience as set out in the vacancy announcement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the two years of international experience outside the duty station of the post was stipulated as the minimum experience requirement for international posts and that the job description and vacancy announcement can set out, in addition, the desirable qualifications and experience which the hiring manager should consider in the selection of candidates. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held as unfounded the Appellant¡¯s contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred by not finding that the requirement for experience outside one¡¯s home country was discriminatory and arbitrary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues raised by the Appellant which were not raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT were not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed errors on questions of facts and law such as to warrant a reversal of its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.