Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
On the Appellant¡¯s argument that the selected candidate was ineligible for consideration or selection on the basis that his tenure on the roster had expired (as per former administrative instruction ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1) and in the absence of specific guidelines, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT took note of the human resources practice of recognising as eligible all rostered candidates whose names were on the roster on the date of the opening of the vacancy announcement for the post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly concluded that, given the existence of this practice, the successful candidate¡¯s eligibility was covered by the provisions of ST/AI/2010/3. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in affirming the successful candidate¡¯s eligibility, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed no legal error and dismissed the appeal on this issue. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that there was a delay on the part of the Administration in notifying the Appellant of the selection decision was based on the erroneous belief that his name was on the list of rostered candidates forwarded to the hiring manager. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that the communication to the Appellant did not constitute undue delay, noting that he was notified while the selection process remained ongoing. Insofar as the Appellant challenged the legal findings of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT on his candidacy, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested his non-selection for a post. With respect to the Applicant¡¯s right to be informed of the outcome of the selection process, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant, as a roster candidate, should have been informed within 14 days after the selection decision was made. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT disagreed with the Respondent that this period ran from the date the successful candidate accepted the position. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT emphasised that an Inspira notification did not satisfy the obligation of the hiring manager in this regard, and the notification should have been made directly and personally by the hiring manager. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT concluded, however, that the Applicant had failed to substantiate his claim of harm because of the delay in notifying him and held that there was no basis for an award of compensation.
Legal Principle(s)
The Secretary-General has broad discretion in selection matters and it is not the function of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, in the absence of evidence of bias, discriminatory practices or mala fides, to substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary-General.