2017-UNAT-792, Chhikara

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and Mr Chhikara. UNAT held that UNDT erred when it considered that it did not need the missing evidence of the 25 situation questions and their “key” answers, which directly related to the written test which Mr Chhikara failed. UNAT held that, by rejecting Mr Chhikara’s request for the missing evidence and judging the case without it, UNDT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and also committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. UNAT noted that the interests of justice and judicial economy may be served by UNDT establishing standard rules of evidence and discovery motion practice; and further, that when UNDT compels production, it should require full compliance. UNAT partially granted the appeals, remanded the consolidated case to UNDT for additional findings of fact, and to be judged anew by the same Judge after affording the parties an opportunity to comment on the new evidence, and vacated the UNDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

Mr Chhikara contested his non-selection for a position. UNDT granted the application in part. UNDT found a number of procedural irregularities and that Mr Chhikara’s right to be fully and fairly considered for the post had been breached because he was unlawfully filtered out based on unapproved pre-screening questions and was not directly evaluated by the Panel. UNDT concluded that rescission of the decision would be disproportionate and awarded Mr Chhikara compensation for the procedural violations.

Legal Principle(s)

Relevant evidence should be presented to UNDT. When UNDT compels the production of evidence, it should require full compliance with its order.

Outcome

Appeal granted in part

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 UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT 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.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Chhikara

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry Location :