爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered the content of the Appellant’s appeal, the 爆料网RWA DT judgment, and the Appellant’s request for compensation for material and moral damages and costs. 爆料网AT found that the Appellant’s appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of his appeal. 爆料网AT also held that there was no error in the 爆料网RWA DT’s findings that the Administration’s decision not to confirm the Appellant’s appointment was solely based on his performance and that his allegations of harassment and discrimination were not supported by evidence. 爆料网AT further held that, as there was no illegality, there could be no compensation for harm under Article 9(1)(b) of the 爆料网AT statute. 爆料网AT also dismissed the Appellant’s request for costs because the Commissioner-General had not abused the proceedings. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed 爆料网RWA DT’s judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision not to confirm his appointment. 爆料网RWA DT rejected the Applicant’s claim that the Agency did not give him any advice or guidance. 爆料网RWA DT found no merit in the Applicant’s claim that reports indicated that he had made significant progress. 爆料网RWA DT also rejected the Applicant’s contention that he had been assigned tasks that were not part of his job description. 爆料网RWA DT further concluded that the Applicant’s allegations of harassment and discrimination were not supported by the evidence and dismissed his application.
Legal Principle(s)
A party appealing a judgment of the 爆料网RWA DT is unlikely to succeed in having the judgment reversed, modified, or the case remanded to the 爆料网RWA DT unless the appeal challenges the impugned judgment on one or more of the grounds referred to in Article 2(1)(a) to (e) of the Statute.