2018-UNAT-829, Verma
UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in law or fact in dismissing the application. UNAT held that the evidence had shown that the Appellant did not meet all the requirements for the post to which he had applied, as set out in the vacancy announcement, and that he was rightly placed by UNRWA in tranche 2 list. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had rightly concluded that, since the Appellant was unsuitable for the post, the failure of the Administration to consider his application in priority as an internal candidate had not vitiated the outcome of the selection process. UNAT held that the Appellant had not met the burden of proof, demonstrating an error in the impugned judgment such as to warrant its reversal. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.
UNRWA DT judgment: The Applicant contested the decision not to shortlist him for a post at P-4 level. UNRWA DT dismissed the application on the grounds that the Applicant had failed to prove that the decision not to shortlist him was unlawful, exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, or was motivated by prejudice or other extraneous factors.
The Secretary-General has broad discretion in matters of staff selection. In reviewing such decisions, it is the role of the Tribunals to assess whether the applicable regulations and rules have been applied and whether they were applied in a fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory manner. The Tribunals’ role is not to substitute their decision for that of the Administration.