2024-罌厭弝ⅰAT-1423

罌厭弝ⅰAT Held or 罌厭弝ⅰDT Pronouncements

The 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that a procedural flaw occurred during the recruitment process due to the inappropriate screening of educational requirements. Specifically, the 罌厭弝ⅰAT highlighted that the Hiring Manager failed to verify if the candidates＊ degrees were in fields related to Supply Chain Management, business administration/management, instead considering all of them eligible in respect of educational requirements. Nevertheless, highlighting that the former staff member was, unlike 16 other candidates, neither recommended for the position, nor rostered for future similar vacancies, the 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that this procedural flaw was not sufficient to warrant rescission of the contested decision as the former staff member＊s chances of selection were not impacted by the procedural irregularity. The 罌厭弝ⅰAT also emphasized that there was no evidence to suggest that the former staff member would have passed the competency-based interview.

The 罌厭弝ⅰAT concluded that the former staff member failed to demonstrate that he was denied full and fair consideration in the selection or the rostering process and that there was no proof of bias on the part of the interview panel members. The 罌厭弝ⅰAT found that the 罌厭弝ⅰDT did not err in issuing a Judgment that was at variance from its previous suspension of action (SOA) orders, as the outcome of a previously issued SOA had no bearing on the 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s final findings in its impugned Judgment.

Since the staff member＊s request for rescission had been denied, the 罌厭弝ⅰAT also dismissed his request for compensation. The 罌厭弝ⅰAT also dismissed his request for modification of the judicial system.

The 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. 罌厭弝ⅰDT/2022/130.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Appellant, a former staff member of the United Nations Support Office in Somalia (罌厭弝ⅰSOS), contested the decision of the Administration to neither select nor roster him for the position of 罌厭弝ⅰSOS Chief of Service, Supply Chain Management, at the D-1 level.

In its Judgment No. 罌厭弝ⅰDT/2022/130, the 罌厭弝ⅰDT found that the former staff member＊s candidature was given full and fair consideration and dismissed his application.

Former staff member appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

The appeals process is of a corrective nature. The role of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT is not to conduct a de novo review of the case, but rather to examine the impugned judgment for any errors that might have affected the decision. It is the appellant＊s burden to satisfy the 罌厭弝ⅰAT that such errors exist. Therefore, the scope of appeal is determined by the party initiating the appeals process and the 罌厭弝ⅰAT lacks the authority to raise other issues sua sponte, except for jurisdictional issues.

In reviewing decisions regarding appointments and promotions, the 罌厭弝ⅰDT examines: (1) whether the procedure as laid down in the Staff Regulations and Rules was followed; and (2) whether the staff member was given fair and adequate consideration. Procedural irregularities will only result in the rescission of the contested decision when the staff member had a significant chance of selection or promotion.

Allegations of bias must be established on the balance of probabilities by the person alleging them.

In order to overturn a finding of fact by the 罌厭弝ⅰDT, the 罌厭弝ⅰAT must be satisfied that the finding is not supported by the evidence or that it is unreasonable. Some degree of deference should be given to the factual findings by the 罌厭弝ⅰDT, particularly where oral evidence is heard.

Suspension of action (SOA) orders previously issued have no bearing on the final findings of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT and are not res judicata vis-角-vis the 罌厭弝ⅰDT. The process of SOA has its own rationale of providing a temporary protective measure for staff members against prima facie unlawful administrative decisions that produce irreversible harmful effects. Hence, a Tribunal that ordered a SOA may dismiss the case on the merits, and vice versa.

The 罌厭弝ⅰAT and the 罌厭弝ⅰDT do not have the legal power to review or otherwise amend regulatory norms.

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 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT 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

Rajiv Kumar Chawla

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement