Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
On the question of the non-renewal of appointment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that (1) the Appellant¡¯s application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as he had not submitted a request for management evaluation, and (2) that the Appellant¡¯s request for assistance from the Ombudsman did not constitute a request for management evaluation (and that even it did, it would have been time-barred). On the ¡°decision¡± of the Administration to place adverse material in the Appellant¡¯s official status file and to block him from being rehired, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no final, appealable administrative decision, and that therefore there was no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT concluding that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, albeit for different reasons than Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that if the Administration were to decide to place adverse material in the Appellant¡¯s official status file, the Appellant would not be precluded from challenging it, any administrative decision denying the removal of it, the non-renewal of his appointment, or any other administrative decision taken based on this material. On the Appellant¡¯s argument that a request for management evaluation was not a requirement because he had been subject to a disguised disciplinary measure, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant could not evade the statutory obligation of requesting management evaluation by characterizing the disputed decision as a disciplinary matter. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the non-renewal of his appointment for lack of requisite medical clearance, the decision to block him from being rehired by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR or other Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ entities, and the placement of adverse material on his personnel file. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR claimed that the Applicant failed to disclose that he suffered from an illness, which, had it been disclosed, would have meant he would not have been declared fit to work or been appointed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed his application as not receivable ratione materiae on the grounds that the Applicant had failed to make a timely request for management evaluation.
Legal Principle(s)
Requesting management evaluation is a mandatory first step in the appeal process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has the inherent power to individualize and define the administrative decision challenged by a party and to identify the subject(s) of judicial review. The nature of the decision, the legal framework under which the decision was made, and the consequences of the decision are key determinants of whether a decision is an administrative decision. On the question of whether a decision is an administrative decision, what matters more than which functionary took the decision is the nature of the function performed or the power exercised, essentially whether the task itself is administrative.