Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in the absence of a university degree, the Appellant did not satisfy the academic criterion stated in the vacancy announcement, but he was long-listed, which meant that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA took his experience into consideration and decided that his additional years of experience justified his pre-selection. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in fact in considering that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA did not examine whether the experience of the Appellant could offset his lack of a university degree. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA to limit the short-list to seven candidates with university degrees was reasonable and in the absence of allegations of bias or discriminatory application, the criterion related to the university degree was reasonable and could be used without any additional reference to the experience of the candidate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further ruled that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law in considering that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA did not properly apply the criteria described in the vacancy announcement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested his non-selection for a position. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT held that the Applicant had been unlawfully excluded from the short-list of candidates for not possessing a university degree when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA had improperly applied the criteria described in its vacancy announcement, namely that a ¡°university degree of equivalent experience¡± was required. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT rescinded the impugned decision.
Legal Principle(s)
Judicial review of a staff selection decision is not for the purpose of substituting the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision for that of the Administration. The starting point for judicial review is the rebuttable presumption that official acts have been regularly performed.