2013-UNAT-285, Charles
On the Appellant’s argument that the selected candidate was ineligible for consideration or selection on the basis that his tenure on the roster had expired (as per former administrative instruction ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1) and in the absence of specific guidelines, UNAT took note of the human resources practice of recognising as eligible all rostered candidates whose names were on the roster on the date of the opening of the vacancy announcement for the post. UNAT held that UNDT properly concluded that, given the existence of this practice, the successful candidate’s eligibility was covered by the provisions of ST/AI/2010/3. UNAT held that, in affirming the successful candidate’s eligibility, UNDT committed no legal error and dismissed the appeal on this issue. UNAT held that UNDT’s finding that there was a delay on the part of the Administration in notifying the Appellant of the selection decision was based on the erroneous belief that his name was on the list of rostered candidates forwarded to the hiring manager. UNAT held that it was satisfied that the communication to the Appellant did not constitute undue delay, noting that he was notified while the selection process remained ongoing. Insofar as the Appellant challenged the legal findings of the UNDT on his candidacy, UNAT dismissed the appeal. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
The Applicant contested his non-selection for a post. With respect to the Applicant’s right to be informed of the outcome of the selection process, UNDT found that the Applicant, as a roster candidate, should have been informed within 14 days after the selection decision was made. UNDT disagreed with the Respondent that this period ran from the date the successful candidate accepted the position. UNDT emphasised that an Inspira notification did not satisfy the obligation of the hiring manager in this regard, and the notification should have been made directly and personally by the hiring manager. UNDT concluded, however, that the Applicant had failed to substantiate his claim of harm because of the delay in notifying him and held that there was no basis for an award of compensation.
The Secretary-General has broad discretion in selection matters and it is not the function of UNDT or UNAT, in the absence of evidence of bias, discriminatory practices or mala fides, to substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary-General.