Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was defective in that it failed to invoke the jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT under Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute by not asserting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had either exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, failed to exercise its jurisdiction, erred on a question of law, committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case, or erred a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant also failed to comply with the requirements of Article 8(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP by not providing a brief explaining the legal basis of any of the five grounds of appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to meet his burden. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he could not invoke ignorance as an excuse for not being aware of the applicable procedure for recourse within the system of administration of justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make any error of law or fact in holding that the application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision not to promote him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application was not receivable because the Applicant had not requested management evaluation.
Legal Principle(s)
An appellant has the burden of satisfying Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT that the judgment rendered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was defective. The appellant must identify the alleged defects and state the grounds relied on by asserting that the judgment is defective; it is not sufficient for an appellant to state that he or she disagrees with the outcome of the case or repeat the arguments submitted before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. It is a staff member¡¯s responsibility to ensure that he or she is aware of the applicable procedure in the context of the administration of justice of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ; he or she cannot invoke ignorance as an excuse.