±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing, determining that there was no need for further evidence, and then considered the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the minor errors in the promotion process prejudiced no one¡¯s rights, especially in that, while it is much better practice to do so, the Appellant cited no authority requiring the listing of the exact number of positions available in the vacancy announcement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also affirmed the findings of fact by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, including that the Appellant well knew the numbers of vacancies, and there was no individual prejudice to him in the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the application for revision of judgment No. 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-014 by Mr Luvai. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the allegation that the Legal Officer who was assigned to the case before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was a Facebook ¡°friend¡± of Judge Boolell, the then ±¬ÁÏÍøDT President, and of a few other people who could have been tangentially involved in the issues of the underlying dispute and that Judge Boolell somehow influenced the judge sitting on the instant case to rule improperly. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Luvai offered not a shred of proof of anything improper. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the application.