Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT considered an appeal of Order No. 079. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that, regardless of whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT may have committed an error of law, fact, or procedure, Article 2(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Statute precluded an appeal to Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT if Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Order.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment beyond its expiration as a result of a retrenchment exercise and submitted an application for suspension of action. In Order No. 079 (NBI/2019), the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT declined to suspend the administrative decision on grounds that the impugned administrative decision was not prima facie unlawful.
Legal Principle(s)
Appeals of Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT decisions on suspensions of action are only receivable before Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT if Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT, in the adjudication of such applications, clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence.