Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was defective for failure to identify errors made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. However, noting that the Appellant was self-represented, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in finding that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA had properly exercised its discretion in transferring the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in jurisdiction, procedure, law, or in fact in dismissing the Appellant¡¯s application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proving that the decision to transfer him to another post after the abolition of his post was exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, was motivated by prejudice or other extraneous factors, or was flawed by procedural irregularity or an error of law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT reasonably found that there was no obligation on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA to ensure that every staff member involved in a restructuring process will be placed in their location of choice or that they would retain the same post for the rest of their employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that given the transfer had been accepted by the Appellant, and in the absence of any duress or undue influence at the time of his acceptance of that offer, it would be inequitable to allow the Appellant to go back on his acceptance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding did not result in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no justification for an award of compensation given that no illegality had been found. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.