Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT upheld the Secretary-General’s claim that the Hiring Manager more than minimally demonstrated that she gave the Appellant’s candidature full and fair consideration. UNAT held that UNDT properly applied the standard of judicial review to determine whether the Hiring Manager’s decision that the Appellant was not among the most qualified for the post was reasonable. UNAT held there was no reason to reverse the findings of UNDT. UNAT noted that the Appellant merely repeated the arguments he made before UNDT and expressed his disagreement with the findings of the Hiring Manager. UNAT held that UNDT did not err on a question of law with respect to the discretion of the Hiring Manager, and the UNDT correctly upheld the decision not to shortlist the Appellant for interview. UNAT did not find any merit in the Appellant’s submissions that UNDT erred on a question of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision in finding that the decision not to convoke him for an interview was not unreasonable, improperly motivated or procedurally flawed and UNAT held that the appeal failed on this ground. On the Appellant’s submission that UNDT committed an error in procedure in deciding it to be unnecessary to hear witnesses in the case or to order production of further evidence given that such information would have affected the decision in the case, UNAT held that UNDT lawfully exercised its discretion on matters of procedure and the appeal failed on this ground. UNAT held that there was no evidence that there was any procedural irregularity or that the decision not to select the Appellant failed to consider relevant material or was unreasonable or tainted by extraneous motive, bias or discrimination towards him. UNAT held that there was not any evidence that UNDT exercised its discretion unreasonably in disallowing further testimony and production of evidence. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.