Staff selection (non-selection/non-promotion)

The UNAT affirmed the decision of the ITLOS JAB, holding that the ITLOS was not obliged to conclude the recruitment exercise once it had begun, and that it had the authority to cancel the process. The UNAT was concerned by the change to the recruitment procedure during the course of the contested recruitment, but could not discern how this affected Mr. Savadogo’s candidacy. The UNAT agreed with the ITLOS JAB that Mr. Savadogo’s allegations of bias against the Registrar in the recruitment were countered by the fact that the President of ITLOS made the significant decisions in the recruitment...

The UNAT agreed with the UNDT that the Administration had shown that Mr. Mirella’s candidature was given full and fair consideration which satisfies the presumption of regularity, and that Mr. Mirella has not proven through clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance. The UNAT reviewed Mr. Mirella’s contention that the UNDT erred in finding that his exclusion from the shortlist was in compliance with Section 7.4 of ST/AI/2010/3 (Staff selection system). Specifically, the UNAT evaluated Mr. Mirella’s argument that the Hiring Manager erroneously found that he did not meet the...

Mr. Younis appealed. The UNAT found that after perusing the PHP submitted by Mr. Younis, the UNDT had held that the suitability review was correct. The PHP confirmed the Administration’s assessment of Mr. Younis’ work experience. The total number of years of his experience for the two criteria had been properly arrived at by first determining if the nature of his work experience fulfilled the relevant criteria and then the number of years for which he had served in relevant roles was computed for both criteria. The UNAT held that even if Mr. Younis was given the benefit of the doubt on the...

The Applicant was not eligible to apply for and participate in the selection process for the Post because, after she passed the G to N exam, she was offered a YPP placement, and refused that YPP placement. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant, a General Service staff who was no longer on the list of “successful candidates” for the competitive examination, was therefore not eligible to apply for and participate in the selection process for positions in the Professional category, including the Post. The decision to exclude the Applicant from the selection procedure for the Post was therefore...

Following the recusal of his FRO from the Panel, there is no evidence to suggest that the Applicant would have had a better chance had his FRO been present, nor that his (the FRO’s) presence in the other CBIs gave them a better chance. Even if the CBI panel had remained constant and identical, with the inclusion of the FRO, the record before the Tribunal demonstrates that the selected candidate was superior in her candidature. The administration of a written test is not mandatory pursuant to the Staff Selection AI. The onus was on the Applicant to prove the alleged bias. Ill-will is not a...

The challenge against the decision to grant the Applicant a special post allowance (SPA) instead of a temporary promotion was found to not be receivable ratione materiae for the lack of an administrative decision. The Tribunal also considered that this claim was not receivable due to the absence of a timely management evaluation request. The challenge against the decision to find the Applicant ineligible to apply for a job opening at the P-5 level was found receivable given that the management evaluation request was filed within two months from the application for the job opening. The...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s candidature was not given full and fair consideration. Many questions were deleted after the test, a grading methodology was developed after the test and even the passing grade was determined after the test. If indeed there was a legitimate need to make a correction, which there was no proof that there was, the permitted action that the Administration could have taken as per Chhikara 2020-UNAT-1014 was either: (a) administer a new written test to all candidates; or (b) implement variations to the assessment methodology that would not have prejudiced any...

The Applicant had no standing to contest the modality of a further recruitment process. Absent a reviewable administrative decision, the application was not receivable with respect to the principal claim. As the administration acted within the scope of its discretion, compensation was not due.

The Applicant received the contested decision on 10 May 2022 thus, she should have requested management evaluation by 9 July 2022 but she did not do so until 13 July 2022. The application was deemed not receivable because the Applicant did not request management evaluation of the contested decision within the stipulated time limit.

Mr. Farhadi appealed. UNAT dismissed the appeal. UNAT dismissed Mr. Farhadi's contention that the successful candidate had not been subject to the mandatory vetting procedure. The mere indication by the Hiring Manager of the fact that “[b]oth candidates have worked with women and trade previously” under the rubric “Reference check” was not sufficient to conclude that there were no actual reference checks. UNAT held that more importantly, reference checks normally take place only once the selection has been concluded, and in the present case, Mr. Farhadi was not selected. UNAT found that in...