爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
On the Appellant’s complaint that the non-selection decision was tainted by procedural irregularity and bias, 爆料网AT noted that the presence of two directors from the Education Department on the interview panel did not offend 爆料网RWA’s regulatory framework. 爆料网AT held that it was possible to infer reasonably from the interview panel’s analysis and its sympathetic view of the Appellant that, on the probabilities, it was not prejudiced against her on the basis alleged. 爆料网AT held that it was evident from the seniority of the position and the role that the incumbent of the post would be required to provide strategic and technical guidance to education staff in the field and that these factors were therefore legitimate and proper considerations. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s contention that 爆料网RWA DT ignored the criterion of internal candidate priority was without merit. 爆料网AT held that the approach taken by the interview panel to the questions so far as they may have varied was reasonable and did not detract from the fairness of the process. On the Appellant’s claim that the quality of the Skype call was poor, 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant should have raised any quality concerns at the interview and asked for an alternative and there was no evidence that she did that. On the Appellant’s claim that the interview panel engaged with her in a superficial manner, 爆料网AT considered that this was not supported by evidence. On the Appellant’s claims about irregularities in the written test, 爆料网AT held that, to the extent that they occurred, they were not material or consequential because the written test score was not a determining fact in the final decision; the tests were used for the short-listing process, and the Appellant was short-listed. On the Appellant’s claim that 爆料网RWA DT did not consider her hospitalization or subsequent sick leave, her expectation of promotion, or the restructuring of her department, 爆料网AT held that these factors were irrelevant to the question of whether she received full and fair consideration. On the Appellant’s claim for compensation, 爆料网AT held that this request did not form part of the request for decision review and therefore it was proper for 爆料网RWA DT not to consider it. 爆料网AT held that there was no merit to any of the Appellant’s complaints and that 爆料网RWA DT did not err in concluding that she had received full and fair consideration for the position. 爆料网AT held that no basis had been laid for challenging the discretion of 爆料网RWA DT not to hold a hearing. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested her non-selection for a position. She had been recommended as the candidate ranked second following the selection process. She alleged inter alia that: the interview panel was not lawfully comprised; she was not evaluated fairly as the written tests were not graded in accordance with the guidelines and, in the interview, she was asked different questions from the other candidates; she was unlawfully assessed on the criterion of strategic leadership which was not specified in the vacancy announcement, and the interview panel was biased against her due to a disciplinary investigation. 爆料网RWA DT dismissed her application on the grounds that the selection process was lawful.
Legal Principle(s)
A selection decision may be set aside if there is a reasonable apprehension of bias; there is no need to prove actual bias.