爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct in finding that “consideration” of a candidate for the purposes of ST/AI/2006/3 did not necessarily mean that a candidate can only be meaningfully considered once the relevant assessment tools have been administered to the candidates and the outcome communicated to them. 爆料网AT held that the fact that the Administration invited the 30-day mark candidates to undertake a written test before the assessment of the 15-day mark candidates was completed did not mean that the Appellant was not afforded priority consideration. 爆料网AT noted that the written test had taken place after the Appellant’s interview and after he had been found not to be suitable for the post. 爆料网AT held that the priority candidates such as the Appellant had already been adequately treated and evaluated when the test and interviews of the 30-day mark candidates took place. 爆料网AT held that there was no flaw in the selection process that would warrant the requested compensation. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to provide evidence in support of his contention that the selection process was biased and unfair. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision not to select him for a P-4 post. 爆料网DT found that the Applicant had been given priority consideration as a 15-day mark candidate in compliance with the former Staff Regulations and Rules. 爆料网DT found that “consideration” of a candidate for the purpose of ST/AI/2006/3 meant assessing his or her qualifications and skills against the requirements and competencies set out in the relevant vacancy announcement with a view to determining his or her suitability to perform successfully the functions of the post. 爆料网DT found that the test and interviews of the two pools of candidates took place separately and no 30-day mark candidates took part in even the first part of the appraisal process until the interviews of the 15-day mark candidates had been completed. 爆料网DT found that the 15-day mark candidates were therefore considered first, in compliance with ST/AI/2006/3. 爆料网DT emphasised that 15-day mark candidates were only entitled to be granted precedence under ST/AI/2006/3 if they were suitable for the position. 爆料网DT found that a 15-day mark candidate who, after consideration for a position, appeared not to be fit for the position, could claim no further right to priority consideration. 爆料网DT found that the Applicant had been rightfully considered as not suitable for the post because of his failure at the written test as well as his insufficient performance during the interview. 爆料网DT found that the Applicant had failed to submit evidence in support of his contention that the selection process was tainted by bias, discrimination, and improper motive. 爆料网DT dismissed the application.
Legal Principle(s)
As stated in Abbassi (judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-110), to overturn a finding of fact by 爆料网DT, 爆料网AT must be satisfied that the finding is not supported by the evidence or that it is unreasonable. Deference should be given to the factual findings of 爆料网DT which, as the court of first instance, is best placed for that task.