Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

ArÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision not to hold an oral hearing was a shortcoming since the parties had not agreed to the case being decided on the papers and the facts needed to be established by witnesses and/or further documentary evidence. On the question of bias and its possible bearing on the outcome of the selection process, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT should have engaged in a thorough examination of the facts, rather than drawing an inference. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the inference drawn by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, that it was realistic to conclude that not all of the posts could be filled by suitable candidates, was not reasonable in the circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a number of facts were not sufficiently established before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, such as whether answers given in Arabic were translated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was not an adequate fact-finding exercise by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, which would have enabled Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to review whether the administrative decision was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s determinations that there was no bias, prejudice, and unlawfulness and that there was fair and adequate consideration were not supported by the facts. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact-finding exercise was incomplete, which constituted a clear error of procedure and violation of due process such as to affect the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment, and remanded the cases for a hearing de novo before a different Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judge and adjudication on the merits.