±¬ÁÏÍø

Area Staff Personnel Directive No. A/4/Part II, Rev. 8/Section I

  • Area Staff Personnel Directive No. A/4/Part II, Rev. 8/Section I
  • IPD 1/10
  • IPD/I/104.4
  • IPD/I/112.6/Rev.1
  • PD 1/4/Part I/Rev.1
  • PD A/10
  • PD A/10/Rev.1
  • PD A/10/Rev.3
  • PD A/17
  • PD A/2/Part.II/Rev. 4
  • PD A/23
  • PD A/3
  • PD A/4/Part II/Rev.7
  • DP A/4/Part VII/Rev.7
  • DP A/5/Part II
  • DP A/5/Rev.7/Part II
  • DP A/6/Amend.12/Part III
  • DP A/6/Amend.72
  • DP A/6/Part II/Amend.2
  • DP A/6/Part VI
  • PD A/60
  • DP A/9
  • DP A/9/Rev.10
  • DP I/104.2
  • DP No.A/3/Rev.1/Part XI/Amend.5
  • PD/A/1/Rev.1/Par1/Section 1
  • PD/A/4/Part II/ Rev.7/Section 1
    • Showing 1 - 2 of 2
    2025-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1521, Mahmoud Mohamad Zeidan

    The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the vacancy had been advertised for only ten days which violated the mandatory requirement of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Personnel Directive, and this violation had been corrected by cancelling the recruitment process and constituting another one that met the requirement of the minimum posting period.

    The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member had not identified the alleged defects of the impugned Judgment but rather had reargued his case and, therefore, had not discharged his burden of satisfying the Appeals Tribunal that the impugned Judgment had been in error.

    The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that, in...

    2024-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1467, Qasem Qasem

    Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦, en ce qui concerne l'exclusion de M. Qasem de la consid¨¦ration pour le poste de chef int¨¦rimaire, que le DT de l'±¬ÁÏÍøRWA avait commis une erreur en estimant que la candidature de M. Qasem n'¨¦tait pas recevable.Le Tribunal d'appel a toutefois estim¨¦ que, dans les circonstances de l'esp¨¨ce, il ¨¦tait dans l'int¨¦r¨ºt de l'¨¦conomie judiciaire de r¨¦examiner l'affaire sur le fond sans renvoi.Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que si l'administration avait ill¨¦galement exclu la candidature de M. Qasem de l'examen, cette irr¨¦gularit¨¦ n'avait eu aucune incidence sur la d¨¦cision de...