Judgment No. 2834
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"It is well established that an organisation has a wide discretion in relation to the appointment and promotion of staff. For this reason, these decisions are subject to limited judicial review. That is, the Tribunal will only interfere if the decision was taken without authority; if it was based on an error of law or fact, a material fact was overlooked, or a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts; if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or of procedure; or if there was an abuse of authority (see Judgments 2060, under 4, and 2457, under 6)."
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2060, 2457
Keywords
breach; promotion; appointment; judicial review; discretion; limits
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The complainant's plea that the decision not to invite him to an assessment was not based on objective and transparent criteria and was arbitrary appears to be grounded on the complainant's view that other less meritorious and less senior candidates were invited to participate in the assessment centre. Given that a key requirement identified in the vacancy note was managerial skills, in the absence of some evidence showing that the complainant possesses managerial ability or that he has the potential to be a good manager, the complainant's assertion is speculative at best."
Keywords
evidence; burden of proof; promotion; seniority; competition; candidate; criteria
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal rejects the complainant's allegation of unequal treatment. The allegation is based on the fact that individuals having less seniority and lower-rated staff reports were invited to the assessment centre. According to the vacancy note, a candidate was expected to demonstrate the ability to manage a directorate comprising 25 to 30 examiners; particular attention would be paid to management potential, and a candidate would be assessed on the basis of his or her ability to manage, resolve disputes, implement policies, and communicate and interact with others. As these managerial skills are not a function of seniority or the requisite skills of an examiner, it cannot be said that preferring candidates with potential managerial skills over those with greater seniority or higher ratings as examiners constitutes unequal treatment."
Keywords
equal treatment; promotion; seniority; performance report; candidate; criteria
Consideration 13
Extract:
"While a candidate is entitled to know the reasons for the rejection of his own candidacy, this does not extend to access to the Selection Board's consideration of the merits of other candidates."
Keywords
duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; candidate; selection board; duty of discretion; limits
Consideration 5
Extract:
The only issues on appeal are those arising from the contested decision and the only remedies that can flow from a successful appeal must be in relation to the contested decision.
Keywords
receivability of the complaint
| 
