爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT refused the Appellant’s application for an oral hearing. 爆料网AT held that the eleven new grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant for the first time on appeal were not receivable. They were for the most part alleged minor procedural defects that in all probability if proven, would have minimal, if any, impact on the fair and full consideration received by the Appellant. 爆料网AT held that the reasoning of 爆料网DT was sound and unassailable, that it correctly determined the issues and dismissed the Appellant’s grounds of review for sustainable reasons. 爆料网AT held that it was unable to identify any error of law or fact justifying interference with the 爆料网DT’s decision. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT’s findings in relation to the delay in advertising the vacancy, the reduced eligibility criteria, the composition of the panel, the application of the no difference principle, the non-binding nature of the Hiring Manager’s Manual, and the applicable principles governing the broad discretion of the administration in staff selection matters were all consistent with the prior jurisprudence. 爆料网AT held that being on a roster does not create an expectancy or entitlement to promotion. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the 爆料网DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision not to select him for a post. 爆料网DT held that the Appellant had received full and fair consideration and had failed on the evidence to establish any impropriety in the decision not to select him for the vacancy.
Legal Principle(s)
It is not enough for an appellant to disagree with the findings of fact or the conclusions of law made by the trial court. For an appeal to succeed, an appellant must persuade 爆料网AT that the contested decision fulfills the objective criteria of its competence. The appeals procedure is of a corrective nature and not an opportunity for an unsuccessful party to reargue his or her case. A party cannot merely repeat on appeal arguments that did not succeed in the lower court; he or she must demonstrate that the court below has committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by 爆料网AT.