Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that pursuant to Article 30 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP and considering the medical condition of Appellant¡¯s counsel, it was in the interests of justice to grant the Appellant¡¯s motion for an extension of time to file her comments on the Secretary-General¡¯s motion to supplement his answer. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accepted the Appellant¡¯s comments on the Secretary-General¡¯s motion as timely filed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Secretary-General¡¯s motion for leave to supplement his answer since his additional pleadings would not advance or assist with the disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had very thoroughly considered the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and Mr Chhikara. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it considered that it did not need the missing evidence of the 25 situation questions and their ¡°key¡± answers, which directly related to the written test which Mr Chhikara failed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, by rejecting Mr Chhikara¡¯s request for the missing evidence and judging the case without it, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and also committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the interests of justice and judicial economy may be...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law in deciding that the decisions not to nominate Ms Sarrouh for the IAAP¡¯s further consideration for the RC positions for which she applied in August and November 2013 were unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by conducting a de novo assessment of Ms Sarrouh¡¯s performance and exceeded its competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and exceeded its competence by substituting its own decision for that of the Administration regarding the outcome of the selection process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the argument that the written test should have been prepared by the Hiring Manager, and not the direct supervisor of the position. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, in agreement with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion, that the Appellant had failed to show that the Hiring Manager¡¯s intervention in the preparation of the written test resulted in her non-selection for the contested post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim was fully and fairly considered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the design, conduct, and evaluation of the written test did not constitute a violation of the Appellant¡¯s right...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not make any errors of law or fact in dismissing the Appellant¡¯s application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no reason to differ from the conclusion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA could not have considered the Appellant as having the requisite international experience. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT gave careful and fair consideration to the Appellant¡¯s arguments regarding the required international experience for the post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to discharge his burden of proving through clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance of selection. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that there had been compliance with all procedural obligations for a temporary appointment with regard to having two persons on the interview panel and that the selection exercise was not required to be reviewed by a CRB. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no duty imposed on the Administration to place unsuccessful candidates on a roster of pre-approved candidates. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence of any discrimination or harassment or any basis for awarding the Appellant any damages for moral injury. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed no error of law, fact, or...

As a preliminary issue, Mr Chhikara brought a motion seeking leave to adduce additional evidence in the form of an affidavit setting out his credentials for the post and credentials of the selected candidate, claiming that he was not aware that this information was relevant at the time he made his initial submissions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused this motion on the basis that no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated and that Mr Chhikara¡¯s explanation that he only realized the relevance of additional evidence after the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision did not escape the fact that it was known to him at the time. As another...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s application for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the eleven new grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant for the first time on appeal were not receivable. They were for the most part alleged minor procedural defects that in all probability if proven, would have minimal, if any, impact on the fair and full consideration received by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reasoning of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was sound and unassailable, that it correctly determined the issues and dismissed the Appellant¡¯s grounds of review for sustainable reasons. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was unable to identify any...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law when it held that the amendment to Article 10(5)(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, which requires harm to be supported by evidence for the award of damages, was not applicable because Ms Tsoneva had filed her application before the amendment entered into force on the basis that an award of damages takes place at the time the award is made. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that applying the amended statutory provision was not the retroactive application of law but rather, it was applying existing law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law by not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law when it held that the amendment to Article 10(5)(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, which required harm to be supported by evidence for the award of damages, was not applicable because Ms Tsoneva had filed her application before the amendment entered into force, on the basis that an award of damages takes place at the time the award is made. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that applying the amended statutory provision is not the retroactive application of law but rather, it is applying existing law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law by not...