爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT noted that in the absence of a university degree, the Appellant did not satisfy the academic criterion stated in the vacancy announcement, but he was long-listed, which meant that 爆料网RWA took his experience into consideration and decided that his additional years of experience justified his pre-selection. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT erred in fact in considering that 爆料网RWA did not examine whether the experience of the Appellant could offset his lack of a university degree. 爆料网AT held that the decision by 爆料网RWA to limit the short-list to seven candidates with university degrees was reasonable and in the absence of allegations of bias or discriminatory application, the criterion related to the university degree was reasonable and could be used without any additional reference to the experience of the candidate. 爆料网AT further ruled that 爆料网RWA DT erred in law in considering that 爆料网RWA did not properly apply the criteria described in the vacancy announcement. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal and vacated 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 held that the Applicant had been unlawfully excluded from the short-list of candidates for not possessing a university degree when 爆料网RWA had improperly applied the criteria described in its vacancy announcement, namely that a “university degree of equivalent experience” was required. 爆料网RWA DT rescinded the impugned decision.
Legal Principle(s)
Judicial review of a staff selection decision is not for the purpose of substituting the 爆料网DT’s decision for that of the Administration. The starting point for judicial review is the rebuttable presumption that official acts have been regularly performed.