Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The staff member who was on a roster of suitable candidates for the Senior Service Desk Officer (SSDO) post was informed that the SSDO post was reclassified to the IT Service Delivery Officer (ISDO) post and the job description had changed to the degree that his membership in the SSDO roster was not applicable to the ISDO post. He expressed interest in applying for the ISDO post but did not apply.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member was not the incumbent of the SSDO post at the time of reclassification. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reclassification of the SSDO post to the ISDO post had not affected the post he encumbered.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had been in a roster for the SSDO post. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his roster membership had not created a right to be appointed directly to the SSDO post.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Commissioner-General that the staff member¡¯s reliance on the AlMousa Judgment was misplaced, as it concerned a candidate who had already been selected for appointment.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵWRA DT¡¯s finding that the decision to reclassify the SSDO post had not produced direct legal consequences or adversely affected the staff member¡¯s terms of employment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵWRA DT had not erred in deciding that the application was not receivable.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that since the application was not receivable, all the staff member¡¯s submissions and additional evidence concerning the merits of the case could not be considered.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
An Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA staff member contested issues related to the reclassification of the Senior Service Desk Officer (SSDO) post to the IT Service Delivery Officer (ISDO) post.
In Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2025/051, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT dismissed the application as not receivable. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT held that as the staff member had not been the incumbent of the SSDO post at the time of its reclassification to the ISDO post, the reclassification decision had not produced direct legal consequences or adversely affected his terms of employment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT moreover found that his membership in a pre-approved roster for the SSDO post had not created any right or legitimate expectation of appointment.
The staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
The key characteristic of an administrative decision subject to judicial review is that the decision must produce direct legal consequences affecting a staff member¡¯s terms and conditions of appointment; the administrative decision must have a direct impact on the terms of appointment or contract of employment of the individual staff member.
The rostered candidate cannot be directly appointed to the relevant post without the required checks and procedures.