�山����

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...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the UNDT’s finding that there was no legal basis for the Administration to assert that Mr Muwambi was subject to the requirement of clearance by a central review body, constituted an error of law since such clearance was a requirement clearly established by the legal framework of the Organisation. UNAT held that, given the discontinuation since 30 June 2015 of the practice of temporarily reassigning staff affected by downsizing in a peacekeeping mission to allow them to apply for vacant positions, practice on which Mr Muwambi’s...

UNAT held that UNDT correctly held that there had been compliance with all procedural obligations for a temporary appointment with regard to having two persons on the interview panel and that the selection exercise was not required to be reviewed by a CRB. UNAT held that there was no duty imposed on the Administration to place unsuccessful candidates on a roster of pre-approved candidates. UNAT held that there was no evidence of any discrimination or harassment or any basis for awarding the Appellant any damages for moral injury. UNAT held that UNDT committed no error of law, fact, or...

As a preliminary issue, Mr Chhikara brought a motion seeking leave to adduce additional evidence in the form of an affidavit setting out his credentials for the post and credentials of the selected candidate, claiming that he was not aware that this information was relevant at the time he made his initial submissions. UNAT refused this motion on the basis that no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated and that Mr Chhikara’s explanation that he only realized the relevance of additional evidence after the UNDT decision did not escape the fact that it was known to him at the time. As another...

UNAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the Secretary-General’s appeal was in direct conflict with his submissions to UNDT. While the Secretary-General acknowledged procedural irregularities by the Hiring Manager to UNDT, in his appeal he argued that no irregularities happened in removing the Applicant’s name from the list and that the Hiring Manager was entitled to exercise her discretion and correct her mistakes after further assessing the candidate’s qualifications. UNAT held that no evidence was presented to UNDT of a second assessment by the Hiring Manager or...

UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding the Hiring Manuals binding on the Administration, nonetheless, confirming that the Hiring Manager’s reliance on the shortlist prepared by the CSS/OSU constituted a procedural irregularity in terms of Section 7. 4 of ST/AI/2010/3, which undisputedly enjoys binding legal authority. UNAT held that such irregularities only result in the rescission of a non-selection decision or of the decision not to shortlist a candidate in case the candidate had a significant chance, which could not be verified in this case, the same logic being applicable to compensation for...

UNAT considered all the grounds of the appeal and held that the issue of whether the Appellant’s application was pre-screened by a Human Resources Officer was irrelevant to determine whether his candidature received full and fair consideration. UNAT held that the main issue for its determination was whether, at the time of application, the Inspira system had provided all of the correct options to the Appellant. UNAT held that this was a factual determination which, without relevant evidence, could not be made. UNAT held that UNDT failed to enquire as to what options were available in the...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the issue of whether the staff member’s application was pre-screened by a Human Resources Officer was irrelevant in determining whether his candidature received full and fair consideration. On the basis that UNDT failed to enquire as to what options were available to the staff member on Inspira at the time of application, UNAT held that UNDT’s findings that Inspira did not reflect the variety of the educational system of all the Member States equally and that the staff member’s candidature had not been afforded full and fair...

UNAT held that the Appellant’s identity was probably known by the assessment panel at the time her test was marked. UNAT held that the Appellant’s test was graded by the assessment panel after it had sent the transmittal memorandum to the Central Review Panel (CRP), creating the additional burden for the Appellant of having to persuade the assessment panel to change its original recommendation in the transmittal memorandum. UNAT held that, as the candidates recommended in the transmittal memorandum did not have this additional burden, it could not be said that all candidates received equal...

UNAT made several findings on the appeal. First, UNAT held that UNDT did not err when it did not hold a case management or substantive hearing on the issues. UNAT agreed that the first instance Judge is in the best position to decide what is appropriate for the fair and expeditious disposal of a case and to do justice to the parties. Second, UNAT agreed with the UNDT that the administrative action was not a disguised disciplinary sanction. UNAT also found that the USG had the authority to transfer the appellant to a different unit to address a political situation. However, UNAT disagreed with...