2017-爆料网AT-778, Faust
爆料网AT rejected the argument that the written test should have been prepared by the Hiring Manager, and not the direct supervisor of the position. 爆料网AT held, in agreement with the 爆料网DT’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. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s claim was fully and fairly considered by 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT found no fault in 爆料网DT’s finding that the design, conduct, and evaluation of the written test did not constitute a violation of the Appellant’s right...