2014-Ģ��ƵAT-454

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered Mr Wang��s appeal, specifically as to whether Ģ��ƵDT correctly concluded that the selected candidate, Ms C. Y., fulfilled the requirements for the post and whether Ģ��ƵDT correctly concluded that Mr Wang was accorded full and fair consideration in the selection process for the post. Ģ��ƵAT was satisfied that the evidence before Ģ��ƵDT supported the Administration��s decision to select Ms C. Y. for the post. Ģ��ƵAT found that there was sufficient evidence that Ms C. Y. had the requisite word count translation requirement and that the Administration gave her proportionate credit for her relevant work experience. Ģ��ƵAT upheld Ģ��ƵDT��s finding that Mr Wang was afforded full and fair consideration for the post in question, and that he was not able to establish that the evaluation method applied by the interview panel was either unreasonable or unfair. Ģ��ƵAT found no other error of law, fact, or procedure, or failure to exercise jurisdiction on part of Ģ��ƵDT. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr Wang contested the decision to not select him for a Chinese Reviser post, alleging improper motive. Ģ��ƵDT held that Mr Wang was afforded full and fair consideration in the selection process and dismissed his application.

Legal Principle(s)

A staff member has a right to be fully and fairly considered for promotion through a competitive selection process untainted by improper motives like bias, discrimination. Generally, it is not for Ģ��ƵDT to substitute its own assessment for that of the interview panel, but it may examine whether the selection process was carried out in an improper, irregular or otherwise flawed manner and assess whether the resulting decision was tainted by undue considerations or was manifestly unreasonable.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Wang

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement