爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not make any errors of law or fact in dismissing the Appellant’s application. 爆料网AT found no reason to differ from the conclusion of 爆料网RWA DT, that 爆料网RWA could not have considered the Appellant as having the requisite international experience. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT gave careful and fair consideration to the Appellant’s arguments regarding the required international experience for the post. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to discharge his burden of proving through clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance of selection. 爆料网AT held that the selection exercise should be based on the assessment of the candidates’ academic qualifications and work experience as set out in the vacancy announcement. 爆料网AT held that the two years of international experience outside the duty station of the post was stipulated as the minimum experience requirement for international posts and that the job description and vacancy announcement can set out, in addition, the desirable qualifications and experience which the hiring manager should consider in the selection of candidates. 爆料网AT held as unfounded the Appellant’s contention that 爆料网RWA DT erred by not finding that the requirement for experience outside one’s home country was discriminatory and arbitrary. 爆料网AT held that the issues raised by the Appellant which were not raised before 爆料网RWA DT were not receivable. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to establish that 爆料网RWA DT committed errors on questions of facts and law such as to warrant a reversal of its judgment. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested his non-selection for a position. 爆料网RWA DT dismissed the application on its merits.
Legal Principle(s)
The Tribunals’ role is not to substitute their decision for that of the Administration. All candidates before an interview panel have the right to full and fair consideration. The presumption of regularity is rebuttable. Issues raised by an Appellant that were not raised before the first-instance tribunal are not receivable on appeal.