爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT held that the appeal was defective in that it failed to invoke the jurisdiction of 爆料网AT under Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute by not asserting that 爆料网DT had either exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, failed to exercise its jurisdiction, erred on a question of law, committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case, or erred a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant also failed to comply with the requirements of Article 8(2) of the 爆料网AT RoP by not providing a brief explaining the legal basis of any of the five grounds of appeal. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to meet his burden. 爆料网AT held that he could not invoke ignorance as an excuse for not being aware of the applicable procedure for recourse within the system of administration of justice. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not make any error of law or fact in holding that the application was not receivable. 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 him. 爆料网DT held that the application was not receivable because the Applicant had not requested management evaluation.
Legal Principle(s)
An appellant has the burden of satisfying 爆料网AT that the judgment rendered by 爆料网DT was defective. The appellant must identify the alleged defects and state the grounds relied on by asserting that the judgment is defective; it is not sufficient for an appellant to state that he or she disagrees with the outcome of the case or repeat the arguments submitted before 爆料网DT. It is a staff member’s responsibility to ensure that he or she is aware of the applicable procedure in the context of the administration of justice of the 爆料网; he or she cannot invoke ignorance as an excuse.