爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT held that the case was fully and fairly considered by 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT found no error of law or fact in the 爆料网DT decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT thoroughly considered the material facts of the case at issue and found that the qualification the Appellant had attained was not the equivalent of the required first-level university degree. 爆料网AT held that there was no error of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT conclusions were consistent with the evidence and that the Appellant did not put forward any persuasive grounds to warrant interference by 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not establish any error in the 爆料网DT determination that she was ineligible for a one-time amnesty for staff members under Section 6 of ST/AI/2018/5, since this provision applies to staff members who requested a review of their degrees under Section 4 of ST/AI/2018/5. 爆料网AT held that there was no error in the 爆料网DT finding that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision not to renew her contract was tainted by improper motives, unfairness, or lack of transparency. 爆料网AT held that the lack of the minimum educational requirement on her part constituted a valid reason proffered by the Administration for not renewing her contract. 爆料网AT held that since no illegality was found, there was no justification for the award of compensation. 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 renew her appointment upon its expiry on the grounds that she did not meet the minimum educational requirements for her position. 爆料网DT dismissed the application.
Legal Principle(s)
Fixed-term appointments and appointments of limited duration carry no expectation of renewal or conversion to another type of appointment. The renewal of the appointment of a staff member on successive contracts does not, in and of itself, give grounds for an expectancy of renewal, unless the Administration has given an express promise that gives the staff member an expectancy that his or her appointment will be extended, in which the jurisprudence this promise at least to be in writing.