UNDT/2023/084 | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

UNDT/2023/084, MOULANA

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

As long as the Temporary Job Opening had no impact on the Applicant’s chances of selection, then an irregularity could not be relied upon as a basis for the selection process to be declared unlawful.

The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that the Applicant cannot base his argument against the selection process in JO# 136259 by questioning the process in other matters which do not affect his case.

The Tribunal held that whilst the procedure spelt out in ST/AI/2010/3 was not followed, it was unable to see how this irregularity could have had any impact on the selection process.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested a decision to not select him for the position of Requisitions Officer, advertised through Job Opening No. 136259 (“JO# 136259”).

By the same application, the Applicant also challenged the decisions: (i) not to select him for the Temporary Job Opening (“TJO”) No. 95616 FS-6; (ii) to extend the temporary assignment of HH ; and (iii) to place HH on the roster of pre-approved candidates for FS-6 Requisitions Officer.

Legal Principle(s)

When judging the validity of the Secretary General’s exercises of discretion in administrative matters the Dispute Tribunal determines if the decision is legal, rational, procedurally correct and proportionate.

The Dispute Tribunal can consider whether relevant matters have been ignored and irrelevant matters considered and examine whether the decision is absurd or perverse.

It is not the role of the Dispute Tribunal to consider correctness of the Secretary-General’s choice amongst the various courses of action open to him. The selection decisions are also veiled with a cloak of regularity, which have to be successfully challenged.

In a selection case the Tribunal’s task is to determine whether the Applicant had a full and fair opportunity to be selected for the job which was advertised and for which another candidate was selected.

The Tribunal’s assessment would therefore involve scrutiny of the entire process in which the Applicant was involved and the result of that process in which another candidate was chosen for the position advertised.

The Tribunal must determine whether the process was lawful, fair and in no way perverse nor unreasonable.

Outcome

Dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

MOULANA

Entity

UNMISS

Case Number(s)

UNDT/NBI/2020/102/R1

Tribunal

UNDT

Registry Location :

Nairobi