2017-Ģ��ƵAT-792

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and Mr Chhikara. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT erred when it considered that it did not need the missing evidence of the 25 situation questions and their ��key�� answers, which directly related to the written test which Mr Chhikara failed. Ģ��ƵAT held that, by rejecting Mr Chhikara��s request for the missing evidence and judging the case without it, Ģ��ƵDT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and also committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. Ģ��ƵAT noted that the interests of justice and judicial economy may be served by Ģ��ƵDT establishing standard rules of evidence and discovery motion practice; and further, that when Ģ��ƵDT compels production, it should require full compliance. Ģ��ƵAT partially granted the appeals, remanded the consolidated case to Ģ��ƵDT for additional findings of fact, and to be judged anew by the same Judge after affording the parties an opportunity to comment on the new evidence, and vacated the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr Chhikara contested his non-selection for a position. Ģ��ƵDT granted the application in part. Ģ��ƵDT found a number of procedural irregularities and that Mr Chhikara��s right to be fully and fairly considered for the post had been breached because he was unlawfully filtered out based on unapproved pre-screening questions and was not directly evaluated by the Panel. Ģ��ƵDT concluded that rescission of the decision would be disproportionate and awarded Mr Chhikara compensation for the procedural violations.

Legal Principle(s)

Relevant evidence should be presented to Ģ��ƵDT. When Ģ��ƵDT compels the production of evidence, it should require full compliance with its order.

Outcome

Appeal granted in part

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

Chhikara

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry