爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT held that while the 爆料网RWA DT decision could have had an indirect impact on the Appellant’s terms of appointment or contract, a direct effect is needed in order to allow a staff member to contest an adverse administrative decision. 爆料网AT held that the fact that 爆料网RWA granted the change of modality of contract to the other individual did not have any bearing on the outcome of the 爆料网RWA DT decision, because the application was dismissed on receivability grounds. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not err in any of its factual findings resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not err in its legal conclusion that the administrative decision of 爆料网RWA to change the modality of the contract of a third party was a discretionary one, having no direct impact on the Appellant’s terms of appointment or contract, and thus led to the finding that the application was not receivable. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
爆料网RWA DT judgment: The Applicant contested the decision to grant an Individual Service Provider contract for the position of Assistant Professor English Literature and Linguistics to an individual who had been employed on a limited-duration contract as an Assistant Professor – English Language. The Appellant was serving against the post of Assistant Professor English Literature and Linguistics on an acting basis and applied as soon as the vacancy was announced; however, after having gone through the recruitment process, he was made the second priority candidate for the post. 爆料网RWA DT found that the decision not to advertise the post, but rather to hire another individual for the post, was a discretionary decision, which did not have any direct consequence for the Applicant’s terms of appointment of contract. 爆料网RWA DT ultimately held that the Applicant’s expectation that a post, for which he wanted to apply, would become vacant did not give him legal standing to contest the decision. 爆料网RWA DT held that the application was not receivable.
Legal Principle(s)
爆料网AT is not an instance for a party to reargue a case without identifying the defects and demonstrating on which grounds an impugned first instance tribunal judgment is erroneous.