Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT held that the case was fully and fairly considered by UNDT. UNAT found no error of law or fact in the UNDT decision. UNAT held that UNDT thoroughly considered the material facts of the case at issue and found that the qualification the Appellant had attained was not the equivalent of the required first-level university degree. UNAT held that there was no error of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that the UNDT conclusions were consistent with the evidence and that the Appellant did not put forward any persuasive grounds to warrant interference by UNAT. UNAT...

UNDT held that the principal legal issue arising for consideration in the case was whether the Applicant’s qualifications met the requirement of a recognized first level university degree as required by the job opening she was selected for. The Tribunal held that the Applicant did not meet the minimum educational requirements for positions at the P-2 level and was not eligible to be considered for a one-time amnesty for staff members under section 6 of ST/AI/2018/5. The Tribunal held that the Applicant did not demonstrate unfairness, unjustness, lack of transparency or inappropriate motive in...