Ãå±±½ûµØ

An interview panel set up by a Programme Manager is the Programme Manager’s agent and as the principal, the Programme Manager is bound by the evaluation and recommendations of the panel in so far as the panel does not exceed its mandate. When a head of department having a final say in the making of a selection decision influences the outcome of an interview process and report, the resultant selection process has been unduly interfered with and its integrity compromised. It does not lie within the discretionary authority or prerogative of the Administration to evaluate both 30-day and 60 day...

Case 1. Mere knowledge of or acquaintance with one or more candidates by an interview panel member does not disqualify her or him from being on the panel. It would be otherwise if there were a personal relationship (such as family or friendship) with or personal antipathy for a candidate. The practical apprehension that objective and independent assessment will be adversely affected, quite apart from any issue of fairness, is improper. Where a panel member has another interest that could significantly affect his or her assessment, this should also require exclusion from the panel. In this case...

The applicant was the only 15-day candidate who was interviewed. Interviews of 30-day candidates took place the day following the applicant’s interview. The applicant was not successful; instead, a 30-day candidate was appointed. The applicant submitted that the Administration failed to properly assess her suitability prior to considering other candidates and thus failed to follow the selection procedures applicable to 15-day candidates under ST/AI/2006/3. The respondent argued that the candidate was given priority consideration and was found unsuitable for the post. UNDT found that the...

Outcome: The applicant succeeds. Compensation ordered for distress and loss of career development and associated benefits.

Presumption of regularity. There is always a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed, but this presumption is rebuttable. If the Respondent is able to even minimally show that the Applicant’s candidature was given a full and fair consideration, which he did not in the present case, then the presumption of law stands satisfied. Once a minimal showing has been made, the burden of proof thereafter shift to the Applicant, who need to show through clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance of promotion. Cancelling the first selection exercise and reissuing a...

The e-PAS report for 2007-2008. The Applicant’s behaviour was not appropriate or cooperative, placing her first reporting officer in a difficult position. Nevertheless, under ST/AI/2002/3, it is the duty of the first reporting officer, as well as the head of department and managers with supervisory authority, to make sure that the staff member’s individual work plan is completed on time, and the Organization remains ultimately responsible for the implementation of the e-PAS system. The e-PAS report for 2008-2009. A one-year delay in signing-off on an e-PAS report is clearly improper under sec...

The Tribunal rejects the Applicant’s submission that the expert panel did not; have the authority to compile a list of recommended candidates to the Director of the department based on its assessment of all the candidates participating in the selection process.; There is no requirement in any of the regulations, rules or policies of the; Organization for all expert panel members to undergo training in competency-based interviewing.; The Tribunal concludes that the fact that one out of three members of the expert; panel who interviewed that Applicant had not received competency-based training...

The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has not identified any detrimental effects on him caused by the combination of the selection processes established or that he was; misled by the combined process.;. The Applicant did not meet one of the job requirements, therefore, he had no expectation of being selected against the posts.; In the absence of any prospect of being selected for the Posts, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant has not established that he suffered any harm from being considered along with other candidates.; Nothing on the record suggests that any of the questions that the...

The burden of establishing bias or the perception of bias lies with the Applicant once the Respondent has made a minimal showing of regularity in the recruitment process. The Applicant must establish with clear and convincing evidence that he was not given full and fair consideration for the vacancy. Whilst the Tribunal was surprised that a person in the Applicant’s position and with the Applicant’s experience should not be recommended, it was unable to conclude that the Applicant had not been given full and fair consideration, particularly in view of the fact that some 13 other candidates...

Selection processes: An appointing officer may decline to make an appointment where a selection process is marred by irregularities. It is within the competence of a program manager to set up a new interview panel where an initial interview panel has failed to properly discharge its mandate. While a candidate to a post has no right to be selected, he or she has every right to be fully and fairly considered for the post.Recommendation for a post is not the same thing as selection; while there is discretion in selection, there is no discretion in recommendation. Central Review Bodies: The...