Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision not to short-list the Appellant was an internal step within the selection process and not an administrative decision and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have only received her application against the selection decision whilst the decision not to short-list the Appellant is examined as a part of the final non-selection decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was defective as the Appellant did not clearly define the grounds of appeal as required under Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, however it considered the appeal on the basis that the Appellant was self-represented. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s allegation that the case management of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was flawed, as it has broad discretion in managing its cases and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT does not see any abuse in this discretion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the re-classification of the post in question was lawful and reasonable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Hiring Manager used a lawful and reasonable standard regarding the requirement of significant language-related management experience. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it had no reason to doubt the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that this standard was consistently applied to all candidates as the Appellant did not present any evidence that could show otherwise. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that it was obvious that the Appellant did not fulfil the requirement of significant management experience and therefore it was lawful not to short-list or select her for the position. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in stating that the Appellant¡¯s roster status had no impact on the selection process or that she had not been unduly denied the opportunity to acquire in-house managerial experience. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Appellant did not present any evidence to show that the decision not to short-list or select her was motivated by extraneous factors. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that absent any illegality, there could be no compensation awarded. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.