Ãå±±½ûµØ

The fact that the Applicant had only a few months left to reach full retirement age and that if she had been allowed to reach mandatory retirement age her terminal benefits would have been better than what she received on termination, or the fact that the Field Staff Union intervened to have her granted a brief extension, or that she was afforded less days’ official notice before termination do not constitute valid grounds for alleging that the abolition of her post was irregular. These were not relevant matters that the Administration was obliged to consider. The Respondent conceded that one similarly situated staff member was placed in a post after taking into account objective selection criteria that included, gender, bearing in mind that the post was in a security risk area and it was preferable to assign a man rather than a woman. This explanation met the standard of proof that the selection was regular. The Applicant did not rebut the presumption by adducing evidence to show that the selection of Mr D R-B instead of her was irregular. The Applicant did not show how she met all the requirements for conversion to a continuing appointment and that her EOD was changed without her knowledge. The Applicant failed to adduce any evidence to connect the decision of abolition of the post to her vocal participation in the staff union. The Respondent’s advice to the Applicant and other staff members facing termination to take proactive steps to ensure their continued employment satisfied the duty of care of ensuring that staff members may be considered for alternative positions. The onus was on the Applicant to show an interest and apply for a position for which she was suited. This was not the Respondent’s responsibility.