A 47-year-old solicitor who claimed he was discriminated against on age and gender grounds when a woman aged 34 was appointed to a post in the Director of Public Prosecutions' Office has been unsuccessful.
The equality officer ruled that no evidence had been provided that the decision was made by reference to age or gender.
Mr Robert Sheehan was one of nine candidates interviewed for the new post in November 2000. The main requirement of applicants was that they have seven years' experience.
Mr Sheehan made a complaint to the Director of Equality Investigations claiming he had been discriminated against on grounds of age and sex.
He had worked in the DPP's office since 1996 as a professional officer, considering Garda investigation files and directing prosecutions in relation to them.
At one stage during his submisions Mr Sheehan argued that there would be less need for tribunals and fewer miscarriages of justice if people with a strong sense of justice like himself were appointed to senior positions in the public service.
He claimed to the investigating equality officer that the DPP had said it was essential that the office of the solicitor be located in the same building as the office of the DPP for the purpose of control.
He claimed this desire to "control" the solicitor had contributed to the appointment of a young and relatively inexperienced person.
If he had been appointed he would have acted on a professional basis without fear or favour.
He contended that a strong sense of justice founded upon a great depth of experience should be a sought-after quality for a position such as solicitor to the DPP.
He had also, before the interviews, objected to the Deputy DPP being on the interview panel because he felt he harboured an "unjustified personal grievance" against him.
The DPP's office rejected allegations of unfairness. It said neither age nor gender of candidates was a factor in the selection process. All candidates, it said, were marked out of 100, and the successful applicant, who had eight years' experience, obtained a higher score at interview.
The DPP also insisted he had no interest in someone being appointed to the position who could be manipulated.
The equality officer ruled that no evidence had been provided that the decision had been made by reference to age or gender.