爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
On the Appellant’s claims of discriminatory and arbitrary practices, 爆料网AT did not find that 爆料网DT committed any error of law or procedure of any factual error such as to result in a manifestly unreasonable decision and 爆料网DT’s findings demonstrated that it took cognisance of all relevant information. 爆料网AT held that there was no error by 爆料网DT in holding that it was for the High Commissioner to determine the relative importance of the criteria to use for promotion. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in law or fact when it determined that the Appellant was afforded proper consideration and in finding that the Appointments, Postings and Promotion Board (APPB) did not recommend her solely on the ground of performance. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly found that as the Applicant did not contest her evaluation reports upon which the APPB relied on the date they were prepared, she could not call them into question in the context of this case. On the Appellant’s claim of arbitrariness of the promotions' structure, 爆料网AT found no merit in this ground of appeal. On the Appellant’s allegations of harassment, abuse of authority and retaliatory conduct, 爆料网AT upheld the 爆料网DT’s rejection of her claim that the Secretary-General’s appeal of another judgment was retaliatory. Noting that in her appeal the Appellant reiterated her claims of harassment and abuse of power but refrained from elaborating thereon, 爆料网AT declined to embark on a consideration of her claims. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that 爆料网DT committed any error of fact or law or error of procedure in arriving at its decision. 爆料网AT held that the appeal had no merit. 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 promote her. 爆料网DT dismissed her application, concluding that the Applicant’s non-selection was not discriminatory, as her previous work experience had been considered by 爆料网HCR at the time of her initial appointment and her non-promotion was due to her performance evaluation.
Legal Principle(s)
It is not sufficient for an appellant to merely disagree with the 爆料网DT’s findings. An appellant must demonstrate that the trial court has exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, erred on a question of law, committed an error of procedure such as to affect the decision of the case or erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision.