Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT held that the appeal was not based on any of the required grounds. UNAT held that UNRWA DT properly discharged its duty to examine whether the procedure laid down in the applicable Staff Regulations and Rules had been followed and whether the Appellant had been given fair and adequate consideration. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly placed upon the Appellant the onus of showing by clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of being promoted. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT’s observation that it was not enough for the Appellant to merely allege favouritism and yet produce no cogent evidence, arguments, or submissions in support thereof. UNAT held that UNRWA DT was entitled to decide on the evidence before it that there was no procedural impropriety, favouritism or any other kind of bias or prejudice that tainted the selection process and the decision to appoint the successful candidate. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that UNRWA DT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision and that accordingly, there was no merit in the appeal. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.