2021-UNAT-1099, Antonio Ponce-Gonzalez
UNAT held that UNDT erred in considering that the recruitment exercise was the same and the cancellation of RFR 104637 was just a preparatory step of the selection process because UNDT ignored the difference in the requirements and in the legal framework applicable to those very distinctive ways of contracting and in which each of these contracts is deployed. UNAT held that UNDT also erred in fact when it found that certain UNAT precedents were applicable to the present case because the facts in the present case are not materially identical to those in the cited UNAT precedents.
The decision to cancel the selection process for RFR 104637
A delicate balance must be struck between efficiency in the recruitment exercise and respect for the rights of the candidates. Even allowing the Administration a certain degree of discretion in canceling the RFR and issuing a new TJO, to consider Mr.; Ponce-Gonzalez’s application not receivable would impose upon him too much of a burden before he is able to contest his disqualification from the first selection exercise.
Appeal upheld Judgment No. UNDT/2020/079 vacated, and the case was remanded to UNDT for additional fact-finding and judgment on the merits