Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the receivability of the appeal, whether there was a procedural irregularity, and whether the Appellant was entitled to moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was receivable because it was filed in a timely fashion, according to Articles 7 and 29 of the RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in finding that the Administration failed to properly notify the Appellant of her non-selection because she knew about her non-selection early enough to timely challenge the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and exceeded its competence in awarding the Appellant compensation as there was no procedural irregularity, and there was no evidence of harm to support moral damages, as the Appellant¡¯s testimony alone was not sufficient evidence of harm. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment on the award of damages to the Appellant.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision not to select her for the post and to not inform her of her non-selection. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered that the Administration had failed to notify the Applicant of her non-selection. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant had ¡°suffered stress and anxiety because of that procedural violation¡± and awarded her nominal damages. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant failed to provide any proof of bias or irregularities in the recruitment process or to substantiate that her candidature had not been given full and fair consideration and rejected her application.
Legal Principle(s)
The main purpose of imposing on the Administration the obligation to inform all interviewed candidates of a selection decision is to enable the unsuccessful staff members to pursue their procedural rights, including requesting management evaluation and suspension of the recruitment process.