Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that while the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT decision could have had an indirect impact on the Appellant¡¯s terms of appointment or contract, a direct effect is needed in order to allow a staff member to contest an adverse administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA granted the change of modality of contract to the other individual did not have any bearing on the outcome of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT decision, because the application was dismissed on receivability grounds. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in any of its factual findings resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in its legal conclusion that the administrative decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA to change the modality of the contract of a third party was a discretionary one, having no direct impact on the Appellant¡¯s terms of appointment or contract, and thus led to the finding that the application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment: The Applicant contested the decision to grant an Individual Service Provider contract for the position of Assistant Professor English Literature and Linguistics to an individual who had been employed on a limited-duration contract as an Assistant Professor ¨C English Language. The Appellant was serving against the post of Assistant Professor English Literature and Linguistics on an acting basis and applied as soon as the vacancy was announced; however, after having gone through the recruitment process, he was made the second priority candidate for the post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT found that the decision not to advertise the post, but rather to hire another individual for the post, was a discretionary decision, which did not have any direct consequence for the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment of contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT ultimately held that the Applicant¡¯s expectation that a post, for which he wanted to apply, would become vacant did not give him legal standing to contest the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT held that the application was not receivable.
Legal Principle(s)
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT is not an instance for a party to reargue a case without identifying the defects and demonstrating on which grounds an impugned first instance tribunal judgment is erroneous.