2018-Ģ��ƵAT-829

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT did not err in law or fact in dismissing the application. Ģ��ƵAT held that the evidence had shown that the Appellant did not meet all the requirements for the post to which he had applied, as set out in the vacancy announcement, and that he was rightly placed by Ģ��ƵRWA in tranche 2 list. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT had rightly concluded that, since the Appellant was unsuitable for the post, the failure of the Administration to consider his application in priority as an internal candidate had not vitiated the outcome of the selection process. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant had not met the burden of proof, demonstrating an error in the impugned judgment such as to warrant its reversal. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵRWA DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ģ��ƵRWA DT judgment: The Applicant contested the decision not to shortlist him for a post at P-4 level. Ģ��ƵRWA DT dismissed the application on the grounds that the Applicant had failed to prove that the decision not to shortlist him was unlawful, exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, or was motivated by prejudice or other extraneous factors.

Legal Principle(s)

The Secretary-General has broad discretion in matters of staff selection. In reviewing such decisions, it is the role of the Tribunals to assess whether the applicable regulations and rules have been applied and whether they were applied in a fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory manner. The Tribunals�� role is not to substitute their decision for that of the Administration.

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

Verma

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement