51³Ô¹Ï

The Tribunal finds that both appraisal processes are tainted with procedural flaws. The first performance appraisal did not result in new ratings being given by the rebuttal panel. The second performance appraisal was based in part on the earlier assessment and it did not give sufficient time to the Applicant to improve his performance. Though the Administration is not bound to apply administrative instruction ST/AI/2002/3 to evaluate the performance of 300 series staff members, once it has decided to apply the administrative instruction, the latter must be fully complied with. In the present case, the rebuttal panel, while finding that the ratings should not be maintained, failed to substitute its own ratings for those of the Applicant’s supervisor. The Tribunal considers that, had the performance appraisals been conducted lawfully, the Applicant would have had a serious chance to have his appointment extended. He is thus entitled to compensation for the loss of that chance. In addition, he is entitled to compensation for the moral injury he suffered owing to the fact that his professional reputation was damaged.