Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct when it found that the Appellant should not have been treated differently from other candidates without justification and that proceeding in the manner suggested by him would have breached the other shortlisted candidates¡¯ rights to fair and full consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the only logical conclusion to be drawn was that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in its finding that there was a regrettable error in the temporary job opening when it exempted the previously rostered candidates from any further assessment, and that this error was later rectified when all short-listed candidates were invited to a competency-based interview for assessment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law by validating such an assessment method, even though further assessment had been excluded in the job opening. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that bias or improper motive on the part of the Hiring Manager had not been affirmed by its previous Judgment on receivability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not satisfied his burden of proof in establishing that there was improper motive. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was afforded full and fair consideration and his candidacy could not be evaluated because he failed to attend his interview. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that the Appellant failed to establish any bias by the members of the interview panel, the onus for which was on him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, although rebuttable, the presumption of regularity of the selection exercise in the present case remained intact and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in fact by finding that the Appellant was not entitled to, and showed no legal basis for, his exemption from the interview. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in fact in stating that a correction of error in order to introduce interviews as a method of assessment was not prejudicial to the Appellant¡¯s right to full and fair consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in rendering its judgment, exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, erred on a question of law, committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case, or erred on a question of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Appellant contested his non-selection for a temporary position on the basis that he did not receive full and fair consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed his application.
Legal Principle(s)
Being on a roster does not create any expectancy or entitlement to selection. The participation of a hiring manager who previously excluded a candidate from another selection exercise does not in itself give rise to any substantive allegation of bias or discrimination, even in the more serious circumstance of the first selection exercise having been cancelled. To exclude a panel member from a selection exercise, there must be reasonable grounds and/or evidence of extraneous or improper motives.