Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to show how UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence or failed to exercise its jurisdiction. UNAT held that the Appellant had not identified an error on a question of law. UNAT held that it had no reason to disagree with UNDT’s holding that no institutional prejudice, or retaliation, played a part in the non-renewal of the Appellant’s contract. UNAT noted that the decision to take the Appellant’s portfolio away from him had been taken before he had made any report of wrongdoing. UNAT noted that the Appellant’s non-selection for the 11 posts involved a large number of individuals and, unless each of them acted out of retaliation, an unlikely scenario, the Appellant could not succeed in establishing institutional prejudice. UNAT held that the non-renewal of the Appellant’s contract was valid and was not retaliatory. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.