�山����

As a preliminary matter, UNAT declined Mr. Hossain’s request for an in-person hearing and held that Mr. Hossain did not explain, at least sufficiently, why his appeal should be dealt with other than on papers filed. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law by rejecting Mr. Hossain’s proceedings other than on their merits and for threshold jurisdictional reasons that it was empowered to examine and assist to establish. UNAT held that the UNDT, while perhaps disposing of the case in an expeditious way, did not do so fairly, or certainly justly, as between the parties. UNAT admitted on appeal the documentary evidence establishing Mr. Hossain’s applications for alternative positions, and the rejections of them in the interests of justice and for the efficient and expeditious resolution of the proceedings on their merits. UNAT held that Mr. Hossain’s performance assessment, affirmed by the Rebuttal Panel, as “partially satisfactory” was an administrative decision and was, by its very nature, adverse to him, and his proceeding was therefore receivable by UNDT. UNAT allowed the appeal, set aside the UNDT Judgment and remanded the case, as receivable, to the UNDT for hearing.