±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Commissioner-General appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decisions not to grant Mr Abu Lehia sick leave for the specific time periods (28 March to 3 April 2016, 4 April to 17 May 2016, and 18 May 2016 to 7 June 2016) were not reasonable, given the specific factual circumstances of the case at hand and that these decisions were not a valid exercise of the Agency¡¯s discretion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s findings and conclusions about illegality. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Commissioner-General failed to demonstrate any error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Agency¡¯s decision not to grant Mr Abu Lehia...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding that, while ASC No. A/04/2010 did not provide a right to Mr Abusondous to receive an AAA, he did have an expectation that the Agency would ¡°properly exercise its discretion to grant an AAA and [would] be fair in its dealings with him¡±, was correct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no fault with the reasoning that the Agency¡¯s justification of the decision not to appoint Mr Abusondous as Officer-in-Charge and not to grant him an AAA, namely that the Agency would not have been able to meet the 120-day maximum period to fill the vacancy, was not a reasonable ground for the denial...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to identify grounds for his appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was fully and fairly considered. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly based its conclusion about the legality of the termination decision on the medical assessment by the medical board and without medical findings of its own. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s appointment on medical grounds was a reasonable and valid exercise of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA¡¯s discretion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proof of demonstrating an error in the impugned judgment such as...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT committed errors of law and fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in its assessment of the alleged victim¡¯s credibility. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, contrary to ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s understanding, there was no record that the alleged victim had stated that she had been sexually attacked by the Appellant on previous occasions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in drawing a negative inference about the credibility of the alleged victim from her delayed reporting. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA erred in its assessment of the Appellant¡¯s credibility, in particular...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was defective for failure to identify errors made by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. However, noting that the Appellant was self-represented, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered whether ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in finding that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA had properly exercised its discretion in transferring the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in jurisdiction, procedure, law, or in fact in dismissing the Appellant¡¯s application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proving that the decision to transfer him to another post after the abolition of his post was exercised arbitrarily or...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant simply put forward several general complaints related to the alleged merits of her case but did not argue that the judgment was defective or that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT committed an error in deciding that her application was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

On the Appellant¡¯s complaint that the non-selection decision was tainted by procedural irregularity and bias, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the presence of two directors from the Education Department on the interview panel did not offend ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA¡¯s regulatory framework. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was possible to infer reasonably from the interview panel¡¯s analysis and its sympathetic view of the Appellant that, on the probabilities, it was not prejudiced against her on the basis alleged. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was evident from the seniority of the position and the role that the incumbent of the post would be required to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was fully and fairly considered by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error of law in ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the non-extension of the limited duration contract was a result of the elimination of her post due to a lack of funds, which constituted a valid reason proffered by the Administration for not renewing her appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, by applying objective criteria in the reduction of the staffing levels, ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA adhered to the principles of equality...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that in the absence of a university degree, the Appellant did not satisfy the academic criterion stated in the vacancy announcement, but he was long-listed, which meant that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA took his experience into consideration and decided that his additional years of experience justified his pre-selection. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in fact in considering that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA did not examine whether the experience of the Appellant could offset his lack of a university degree. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA to limit the short-list to seven candidates with university degrees was reasonable and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member had not voluntarily absented himself from duty. Rather, he reported for duty throughout at the office he had been re-assigned to, his whereabouts were known to the Agency and he clearly did not intend to abandon his position. As to the staff member¡¯s refusal to report to his original position as instructed, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that his conduct might have been a performance or conduct issue open to censure or discipline. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Agency failed to determine if the conduct constituted insubordination and, if so, a proportional sanction. Instead, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...