Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The Appeals Tribunal dismissed Mr. Jin¡¯s claim that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding no prejudice since, by his calculations, the decision to score Part 2 perfectly for each candidate resulted in a larger interview pool which was disadvantageous to him. The Appeals Tribunal found that this argument was speculative, predicated on one hypothetical counterfactual outcome, and failed to meet Mr. Jin¡¯s burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of selection.
The Appeals Tribunal found that the circumstances in Mr. Jin¡¯s case were fundamentally and dispositively different from the Negasa case, where certain questions were deleted after the answers had been reviewed which tainted the examination process and made it unreasonable, unjust and not transparent. Here, the decision to adjust scoring was made in response to technical difficulties which prevented several candidates from even attempting to answer any questions on Part 2; the decision was made prospectively, before any grading was undertaken; and all applicants were treated equally with respect to the value of Part 2 in the grading process.
The Appeals Tribunal found no evidence of manipulation of grading after results were known, nor any steps which advantaged or disadvantaged any particular group.
The Appeals Tribunal therefore dismissed the appeal.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Mr. Bao Jin, a P-4 Chinese Reviser within the Department for General Assembly and Conference Management (DGACM) at the United Nations Office at Nairobi (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON), challenged before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT the selection exercise for a Job Opening (JO) for three posts of Chinese Reviser within DGACM in New York, following which he was rostered but not selected. His application focused on management¡¯s decision, when confronted with an unexpected technical difficulty during the testing process, to disregard Part 2 of the written assessment and award full credit for that Part equally to all candidates.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Hiring Manager¡¯s decision not to consider Part 2 after consultations with the appropriate officers was reasonable and fair. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the claim that dispensing with Part 2 contradicted the JO, noting that there was no mention of a two-part written assessment, and the final process fully complied with the JO description. Finally, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the ¡°no difference¡± principle applied in this case, because as the top scorer on Part 1 of the written assessment, Mr. Jin became the leading candidate when Part 2 was disregarded, and he was invited to the interview. The elimination of Part 2 thus made no difference to Mr. Jin as he progressed on to the interview, at which point he was unsuccessful.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the application, concluding that the contested decision was lawful, and that the selection process was fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory.
Legal Principle(s)
The responsibility for the hiring of United Nations staff rests with the Secretary-General. When such decisions are challenged, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT provide review primarily to ensure that relevant Staff Regulations and Rules regarding the selection process have been applied in a fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory manner.
Selection decisions enjoy a presumption of regularity. Under this standard, official acts are presumed to have been regularly performed so long as the Administration is able to minimally establish that the staff member¡¯s candidature was given full and fair consideration. If that showing is made, the staff member may prevail only by showing by clear and convincing evidence that he/she was denied a fair chance of selection. Reflecting both the Secretary-General¡¯s broad discretion in the selection process and the presumption of regularity which flows therefrom, a staff member has the burden of showing, for example, violations of selection procedures; bias or discrimination; or decisive consideration of irrelevant material in such a way as to unfairly impact the staff member.
Basic minimum standards must apply when administering a written test.
a. Generally, while the Administration enjoys a broad discretion on how to administer a written test, it must nevertheless do so in a reasonable, just and transparent manner; otherwise, a job candidacy would not receive full and fair consideration;
b. As also stated in the Manual for the Hiring Manager on the Staff Selection System, any assessment must be undertaken on the basis of a prescribed performance scale and response guide and on a predetermined passing grade. Accordingly, before a written test is administered, a proper and reasonable grading methodology must be adopted and shared with the graders;
c. If subsequent to the administration of the test, it becomes clear that mistakes were made in this methodology, or the written test turned out to be pointless in that no job candidates managed to pass it in accordance with the predetermined passing grade, then (a) a new written test must either be administered or (b) variations must be made to the assessment methodology that do not prejudice any specific job candidates (the reverse impact of ¡°the no difference principle¡±). In addition, records of the grading must be developed that clearly describe how each job candidate was assessed to permit proper review of the process if challenged.
Outcome
Outcome Extra Text
Mr. Jin¡¯s appeal is dismissed, and Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2025/070 is hereby affirmed.