UNDT/2021/025, Hilzinger
The interview questions were reasonable and that the panel’s report was comprehensive, well-structured and thorough, and with reference to Sanwidi, the decision not to recommend the Applicant was therefore not “absurd or perverse” It is uncontested that the Applicant passed the written test, which was administered by the technical panel, whose composition he is now challenging. Accordingly, this composition evidently did not result in any concrete negative consequence(s) for the Applicant in the challenged selection process, but as a general matter, the Tribunal cannot exclude that a situation could occur where an irregularity in a process is so fundamental that it would render it void from its beginning (ab initio).
The decision not to select the Applicant for the post of P-5 Senior Information Systems Officer with the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund.
The Appeals Tribunal has consistently held that the Dispute Tribunal’s judicial review is limited as per Sanwidi 2010-UNAT-084 It follows from the consistent jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal that the Applicant bears the burden of proving any allegation on ulterior motives. Specifically, regarding promotion (and selection) cases, the Appeals Tribunal has adopted the principle of regularity by which if the Respondent is able “to even minimally show that [an applicant’s] candidature was given a full and fair consideration, then the presumption of law stands satisfied” where after the applicant “must show through clear and convincing evidence that [s/he] was denied a fair chance of promotion” in order to win the case. It falls within the discretion of the Administration to decide how to compose an appropriate technical panel with the required experts. An assessment panel has no duty to consider the performance reports and reflect that consideration in its own assessment.