UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
The Tribunal found that although the requirements under the Policy and Procedures on Assignments and Promotions (“PPAP”) with respect to the level of detail/content of the minutes of the deliberations of the Senior Assignments Committee were only minimally met, this did not invalidate the selection process. The evaluation of both the Applicant and the successful candidate was made against the criteria as contained in the job description, based on the candidates’ respective fact sheets, and not on any wrong assumptions or errors. The Tribunal found that the Applicant received full and fair consideration, that the proper procedures were followed and that the decision was not based on extraneous motives. Additionally, the Tribunal was of the view that any reference by the Applicant’s manager, at the initial stage of the process, with respect to the Applicant’s nationality was not taken into account in the final selection decision. The application was rejected.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant, a P-5 in between assignment (SIBA) staff member of UNHCR, appealed her non-selection to the post of Representative, Rabat, Morocco, P-5.
Legal Principle(s)
Full and fair consideration: As long as the record shows that candidates were assessed against the job description and on the basis of facts as supported by the evidence, the Tribunal will not substitute its assessment of the respective merits of candidates to that of the Secretary-General. The fact that the narratives reflected in the minutes of the relevant body of the selection process only minimally meet the requirements of the applicable rules does not invalidate the selection process.Extraneous considerations: If the record does not support a conclusion that extraneous considerations, such as an applicant’s nationality, was taken into account in the selection decision, the Tribunal does not need to assess whether it might have been a legitimate consideration in assessing the candidate’s suitability for a post. In the case at hand, the Tribunal was of the view that it did not need to assess if the Applicant’s nationality was a legitimate consideration in view of the political implications of UNHCR mandate. Special considerations: According to the applicable rules, if an applicant was not found to be equally meritorious as the selected candidate, any further considerations, such as SIBA status, gender, geographical distribution and rotation do not come into play.