2020-UNAT-1047, Orabi
UNAT considered an appeal of judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2019/070 by the Commissioner-General of UNRWA. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not commit any error when it concluded that UNRWA had failed to consider the Applicant’s personal and humanitarian reasons in the impugned decision. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly concluded that relevant matters (personal and humanitarian reasons) had been ignored in the exercise of the Commissioner-General’s discretion. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.
The Applicant contested the decision not to transfer him to another post and to transfer another colleague instead. The Applicant had requested the transfer for humanitarian and personal reasons. In judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2018/026, UNRWA DT dismissed the application, considering that UNRWA had correctly applied the relevant rules in granting the request for transfer to another colleague based on her seniority. In judgment No. 2018-UNAT-884, UNAT vacated judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2018/026 and remanded the matter back to UNRWA DT. In judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2020/070, UNRWA DT held that UNRWA clearly failed to fulfill its obligation to balance the conflicting interests arising from the humanitarian or personal reasons for the transfer requests of the concerned staff members and that the Applicant’s personal and humanitarian reasons had not been taken into consideration by UNRWA. UNRWA DT concluded that the impugned decision was unlawful, ordered it to be rescinded, and for a new decision to be taken on the Applicant’s request for transfer.
When judging the validity of the Secretary-General’s exercise of discretion in administrative matters, UNDT determines if the decision is legal, rational, procedurally correct, and proportionate, and in doing so, UNDT may consider whether relevant matters have been ignored and irrelevant matters considered, or whether the decision is absurd or perverse.
No relief ordered; No relief ordered