Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was defective or that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in considering that the selected candidate met the minimum educational requirements and the work experience required for the job. Emphasizing the broad discretion of the Secretary-General and that it was not the role of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to substitute its own decision for that of the Secretary-General, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not manifestly unreasonable in deciding that the recommendation approved by the Secretary-General was based on an entire process and the experience of the candidates. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not established by clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant was deprived of a fair process and a fair chance of promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested her non-selection to a position with the ICSC. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed her application on grounds that the Secretary-General had discretion in interpreting the meaning of ¡°extensive experience¡± and he was, therefore, reasonable in his determination that the selected candidate met the work and education requirements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also held that any procedural insufficiencies in the recruitment process had not impacted the Applicant¡¯s chances of promotion and that she did not demonstrate that the interview panel had inappropriately favoured the selected candidate.
Legal Principle(s)
When judging the validity of the Secretary-General¡¯s exercise of discretion in administrative matters, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT determines if the decision is legal, rational, procedurally correct, and proportionate. An irregularity in the promotion will only result in the rescission of the decision not to promote a staff member when he or she would have had a significant chance for promotion. The starting point for judicial review is a presumption that official acts have been performed regularly, although this presumption is a rebuttable one. If a manager can show that a candidate was given full and fair consideration in a staff selection decision, then the presumption of law stands satisfied and the burden of proof shifts to the staff member, who must show through clear and convincing evidence that he or she was denied a fair chance of promotion.