UNDT/2021/159

UNDT/2021/159, YOUNIS

View this page as PDF
Full judgment

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal ruled that the assertion that the Applicant was entitled to automatic appointment since he had a continuous appointment and was on the roster for Senior Transport Officer, P-5 was without basis. The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that the obligation under staff rule 9.6(e) is only triggered where there has been a decision to terminate a staff member’s appointment due to the abolition of a post or the reduction of staff. The Tribunal found that the provisions of staff rule 9.6(e) were not applicable to the circumstances of this case and could therefore not be complied with. The Tribunal found no evidence that the Applicant met and exceeded the requisite skills and qualifications for the position as announced in the vacancy announcement. And, there was no evidence that the responsible officers manipulated the system by falsifying the Applicant’s experience in order to clear and select their favorite candidate. The applicable Staff Regulations and Rules were applied in a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory manner. The burden of proving any allegations of ill motivation or extraneous factors rests with the Applicant. The Applicant failed to substantiate the allegation of ulterior motive.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant challenged the decision not to select him for the position of P-5 Chief of Section, Transport, with the United Nations Support Office in Somalia (“UNSOS”) in Mogadishu advertised through Position-Specific Job Opening (“PSJO”) No.122057.

Legal Principle(s)

There is a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed. Following a minimal showing by the Administration that the candidacy of a staff member was given full and fair consideration, the burden of proof shifts to the applicant, who must show through clear and convincing evidence that he or she was denied a fair chance of appointment. The Tribunal’s role is not to substitute its decision for that of the administration. the mere fact that a staff member is on a roster does not entitle them to be selected for any job opening that may be advertised. A short-listed candidate has a chance of selection and therefore has standing to challenge the qualifications of the selected candidate in support of his own interest in the vacancy.

Outcome

Dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

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.

Applicants/Appellants
YOUNIS
Entity
UNAMID
Case Number(s)
UNDT/NBI/2020/84
Tribunal
UNDT
Registry
Nairobi
Date of Judgement
Duty Judge
Judge Tibulya
Language of Judgment
English
Issuance Type
Judgment
Categories/Subcategories
Staff selection (non-selection/non-promotion)
Full and fair consideration
Selection decision
Applicable Law
Staff Rules