Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that it was satisfied that there were sound reasons supporting the Secretary-General of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCTAD¡¯s decision to cancel the job opening, but noted that it would have been desirable to undertake and complete a gender/geographical balance assessment at an early stage of the recruitment process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT disagreed with the Applicant that the impunged decision was an act of discrimination against him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the decision constituted permissible and lawful affirmative action on the part of the Organization to reach gender and geographical goals set by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ General Assembly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also held that ST/AI/1999/9 was not retroactively applied since it was in place at the time of the recruitment process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the principle of estoppel was not applicable in this case because there was no right being asserted that contradicted a previous agreement by law, the ¡°gender-parity¡± policy was already in place at the time the post was opened for recruitment, and the recruitment process was not finalized since none of the two recommended candidates were appointed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the cancellation of the job opening was not an abusive exercise of administrative discretion by the Secretary-General of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCTAD and, consequently, the contested decision was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the cancellation of a job opening for a post with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCTAD) to which he had applied.
Legal Principle(s)
Official acts are presumed to have been regularly performed, and the presumption stands satisfied if the Administration is able to minimally show that full and fair consideration was given to the candidate. Thereafter, the burden of proof shifts to the Applicant who must minimally show through clear and convincing evidence that he or she was denied a fair chance of selection/promotion.