Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in finding that the Administration was not legally allowed to consider seniority or career advancement in the selection process. UNAT held that it was entirely proper to make a choice between two recommended candidates based partly on their respective seniority and time already served at a particular grade. UNAT held that UNDT also erred in essentially reversing the burden of proof by requiring the Secretary-General to show that the factors considered were explicitly provided for in the legal framework rather than considering whether the staff member had shown by clear and convincing evidence that the contested decision was unreasonable in its basis, motive or effect. UNAT held that the decision of UNDT was inconsistent with UNAT jurisprudence. UNAT held that UNDT erred in fact and law by failing to consider that other factors were considered when choosing the selected candidate, which were in fact the decisive relevant considerations in the selection exercise. UNAT held that UNDT erred by failing to appreciate that the contested decision rested on a careful consideration of a range of relevant factors. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNDT Judgment.