¹ú²úAV

On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, the Tribunal noted that, in the letter to the; Applicant dated 19 November 2012, the Chief Human Resources and Planning Section (HRPS), informed her that her application of for the FS-5 post was not successful. The Applicant was also informed that a suitable positin had been identified for her, namely, a Claims Assistant at the G-6 level. The Tribunal found that the identification of a G-6 level post for the Applicant who at the time encumbered an FS-4 level post could not be considered a suitable position for the Applicant as required by sections 10.2 and 11.1(a) of ST/AI/2010/3. The Tribunal thus held that the contested decision was prima facie unlawful. With regard to particular urgency, the Tribunal found that according to the 19; November 2012 letter from the Chief, HRPS, the decision to assign the Applicant to a; G-6 Claims Assistant would become effective as soon as the selected candidate for the FS-5 post commenced duty. The Tribunal thus held that the Applicant had satisfied the element of urgency. On irreparable damage, the Tribunal observed that having considered the parties’s submissions, it found that the Applicant was to suffer irreparable harm if another candidate was selected for the FS-5 Claims Assistant post and upon her assignment to a G-6 Claims Assistant post.