�山����

The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s candidature was not given full and fair consideration. Many questions were deleted after the test, a grading methodology was developed after the test and even the passing grade was determined after the test. If indeed there was a legitimate need to make a correction, which there was no proof that there was, the permitted action that the Administration could have taken as per Chhikara 2020-UNAT-1014 was either: (a) administer a new written test to all candidates; or (b) implement variations to the assessment methodology that would not have prejudiced any specific job candidates (the reverse impact of “the no difference principle”). Deleting questions was not an option. The Administration’s actions were therefore unlawful. The Tribunal could not afford the Applicant the opportunity to proceed to the next steps of the selection process. He could however be freshly evaluated on his answers to the questions that were deleted. The Applicant had to be placed in the same position he would have been in if the illegality had not occurred, and be granted an opportunity to be fairly considered. The Tribunal directed the Respondent to set a new written assessment to be taken by the Applicant, without undue delay.