¹ú²úAV

The Tribunal agreed with Thiam and Schook which held that the administration must send a written notification of the administrative decision to the staff member in order to determine when the sixty-day time limit starts to run. This Tribunal found that the Applicant was not formally notified of the impugned decision and the only official notification to the Applicant, that he was not selected for the post came in the form of the management evaluation report of 15 December 2010. The Tribunal therefore held that since the Applicant had requested a management evaluation on 27 October 2010, yet...

Categories of candidates: The staff selection system established in ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1 was based on a rigid hierarchy of three categories of candidates in terms of priority consideration: 15, 30 and 60-day mark candidates. If a candidate belonged to a priority category he or she was excluded from the less priority ones. Internal, non-internal and external candidates: ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1 distinguished between: (1) internal candidates, strictly defined in section 1; (2) non-internal candidates, comprising staff members who did not fall within this definition; and (3) external candidates, those...

Bias: The Tribunal held that the test for apparent bias is whether the fair-minded observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the Interview Panel was biased. On the basis of the evidence about negative views held by one of the interview panel members about the Applicant, the Tribunal concluded that the test for apparent bias had been made out. Harassment, discrimination and abuse of authority: The Tribunal concluded that in spite of the adverse finding that the Applicant did not receive full and fair consideration in his application for the...

The Tribunal concluded that: (a) the selection process for the post of D/ACGSD was not handled correctly and lawfully due to apparent bias on the part of the ASP and that he suffered prejudice/damage as a result; and (b) the Applicant was not the victim of harassment and discrimination in relation to this case. Bias: The Tribunal held that the test for apparent bias is whether the fair-minded observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the Interview Panel was biased. The Tribunal concluded that the Advisory Selection Panel (ASP) in the present...

By deciding not to undertake the written test for the two posts, the Applicant removed the hiring manager’s capacity to effectively compare her skills to that of the other candidates. By not taking the written test the Applicant effectively withdrew from the entire approved selection process and she could no longer enjoy the right of being evaluated appropriately, and against the pre-approved criteria. Consequently, none of the Applicant’s rights were breached during the selection exercise for these posts. The Applicant claims that she should have been selected for either of the two posts even...

Selection process: The Tribunal accepted that in the absence of any incumbent of the D-2 post, the decision of the USG/DFS, as Head of Department, to assume direct responsibility for the recruitment process through the Chief of Staff, was not an improper exercise of discretion.Second set of interviews and composition of the Second Panel: The Tribunal found that the decision to hold a second round of interviews, and the composition of the Panel, did not amount to a procedural irregularity in the particular circumstances of this case.Lengthy delay in the selection procedure: The Tribunal...