2022-Ģ��ƵAT-1199

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT erred in law in finding that the Administration was not legally allowed to consider seniority or career advancement in the selection process. Ģ��ƵAT held that it was entirely proper to make a choice between two recommended candidates based partly on their respective seniority and time already served at a particular grade. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT also erred in essentially reversing the burden of proof by requiring the Secretary-General to show that the factors considered were explicitly provided for in the legal framework rather than considering whether the staff member had shown by clear and convincing evidence that the contested decision was unreasonable in its basis, motive or effect. Ģ��ƵAT held that the decision of Ģ��ƵDT was inconsistent with Ģ��ƵAT jurisprudence. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT erred in fact and law by failing to consider that other factors were considered when choosing the selected candidate, which were in fact the decisive relevant considerations in the selection exercise. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT erred by failing to appreciate that the contested decision rested on a careful consideration of a range of relevant factors. Ģ��ƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ģ��ƵDT Judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Appellant contested the decision not to select her for a position. Ģ��ƵDT found that Ms. Khan did not receive full and fair consideration for the position and ordered rescission of the decision or compensation in lieu of rescission.

Legal Principle(s)

In exercising its discretion to make a selection, the Administration is not restricted to factors or considerations explicitly listed in any governing legal instruments; it may consider all relevant factors, as long as such factors are not arbitrary, irrational or capricious. If the management is able to show, even minimally, that a candidate was given full and fair consideration, then the presumption of law that official acts have been regularly performed stands satisfied. The Secretary-General��s broad discretion in matters of the appointment of staff members implies the duty to choose the best evaluation method to assess which candidates are most qualified for selection.

Outcome

Appeal granted

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

Nazma Banaras Khan

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement