Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the argument that the written test should have been prepared by the Hiring Manager, and not the direct supervisor of the position. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, in agreement with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion, that the Appellant had failed to show that the Hiring Manager¡¯s intervention in the preparation of the written test resulted in her non-selection for the contested post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim was fully and fairly considered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the design, conduct, and evaluation of the written test did not constitute a violation of the Appellant¡¯s right to full and fair consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts of the case established that her non-selection was due to her poor performance at the interview and had nothing to do with the written test, which she had passed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any error by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in arriving at its findings that the interview panel was properly composed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no conflict of interest caused by the fact that the Appellant¡¯s team was going through counselling at the time of the recruitment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT gave proper consideration to the question of whether or not the Appellant had been the victim of harassment or bias. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant raised a number of groundless assertions of error and that such assertions by themselves were not capable of persuading it that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was erroneous. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was fully supported by the law and the facts when it concluded that the Appellant failed to show that the procedure was biased against her or that her right to full and fair consideration was violated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.