�山����

The Tribunal held that the Programme Manager failed to consider the Applicant’s candidacy at the 15-day mark as provided by ST/AI/2006/3. In this respect, the Tribunal noted that she was put in a pool with 30-day mark candidates and that most of these candidates were considered before she was. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had not been fully and fairly considered because the Programme Manager and two of the Interview Panel members had deemed her unsuitable for the contested post prior to the commencement of the interview process. Since the Interview Panel failed to provide an objective evaluation of the Applicant’s qualifications, the Tribunal was not in a position to determine whether the provisions of ST/AI/1999/9 were adhered to or not. The Applicant failed to substantiate her allegation of discrimination thus the Tribunal found this claim to be without merit. The Tribunal concluded that the contested decision was unlawful because the selection process was not conducted in conformity with ST/AI/2006/3. Thus, the Applicant’s candidacy was not accorded full and fair consideration and her rights were violated as a result thereof. Consequently, the Respondent is to pay the Applicant two months net base salary for failing to give her priority consideration at the 15-day mark, four months net base salary for failing to give her full and fair consideration and $500 for failing to inform her of the results of the selection process.