RELATION TO THE APPLICANT : FIRST , IRREGULARITIES IN THE PROCEDURE WHICH RESULTED IN THE DECISION NOT TO ESTABLISH HER AT THE END OF HER PROBATIONARY PERIOD , AND SECONDLY , VARIOUS COMPLAINTS CONCERNING THE ASSESSMENTS ON WHICH THE DECISION WAS BASED . IT IS IN THAT ORDER THAT THE COMPLAINTS WILL BE EXAMINED BELOW .
COMPLAINTS IN RELATION TO PROCEDURE AND FORM
14 THE APPLICANT COMPLAINS FIRST THAT HER PROBATION REPORT WAS NOT DRAWN UP WITHIN THE PERIOD LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 34 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , WHICH PROVIDES THAT : ' ' NOT LESS THAN ONE MONTH BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD , A REPORT SHALL BE MADE ON THE . . . PROBATIONER . . . . ' '
15 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FOREGOING THAT THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY BEGAN HER PROBATIONARY PERIOD ON 1 OCTOBER 1981 . ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 34 ( 2 ), THE PROBATION REPORT OUGHT THEREFORE TO HAVE BEEN DRAWN UP BEFORE 1 MARCH 1982 . IN FACT , IT WAS DRAWN UP ON 24 MARCH .
16 THAT DELAY IS NOT , HOWEVER , OF SUCH A KIND AS TO AFFECT THE APPLICANT ADVERSELY . IN FACT , THE AIM OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED PROVISION IS TO ENSURE THAT THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO ESTABLISH A PROBATIONARY OFFICIAL CAN BE MADE BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD . IN THE APPLICANT ' S CASE , THAT DECISION WAS MADE ON 5 MAY 1982 . THAT DID NOT PLACE THE APPLICANT AT A DISADVANTAGE , SINCE SHE REMAINED IN HER POST AND WAS PAID AS A PROBATIONARY OFFICIAL DURING THAT PERIOD . IT THEREFORE FOLLOWS THAT THE COMPLAINT MUST BE REJECTED .
THE APPLICANT CLAIMS , SECONDLY , THAT HER PROBATIONARY REPORT , WHICH FORMED THE BASIS OF THE DECISION NOT TO ESTABLISH HER , WAS LATER SUPPLEMENTED BY FRESH COMMENTS MADE BY HER SUPERIORS WHICH IN SOME RESPECTS ' ' SHIFTED ' ' AND ENLARGED UPON THE REASONS PREVIOUSLY PUT FORWARD . THAT AMOUNTED TO A MISUSE OF PROCEDURE , WHICH VITIATED THE DECISION TAKEN .
17 THAT ARGUMENT CALLS FOR THE FOLLOWING REMARKS . SINCE THE APPLICANT AVAILED HERSELF OF HER RIGHT TO SUBMIT A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DECISION NOT TO ESTABLISH HER TAKEN AT THE END OF HER PROBATIONARY PERIOD , IT WAS NATURAL FOR THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY TO ASK FOR EXPLANATIONS AND SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION FROM THE HEADS OF THE DEPARTMENTS CONCERNED .
18 IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CONTESTED MEASURES ARE LAWFUL , IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER BOTH THE DECISION ADOPTED ON THE BASIS OF THE PROBATION REPORT AND THE DECISION UPHOLDING THE FIRST DECISION TAKEN IN THE LIGHT OF FURTHER INVESTIGATION , AS A RESULT OF THE APPLICANT ' S COMPLAINT .
19 IT SHOULD BE STRESSED IN THAT REGARD THAT THE APPLICANT ' S VIEWS IN RELATION TO BOTH THE PROBATION REPORT ITSELF AND THE SUPPLEMENTARY OBSERVATIONS BY THE HEADS OF DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING HER COMPLAINT WERE DULY