UNDT/2010/086, Abbassi
The applicant was the only 15-day candidate who was interviewed. Interviews of 30-day candidates took place the day following the applicant’s interview. The applicant was not successful; instead, a 30-day candidate was appointed. The applicant submitted that the Administration failed to properly assess her suitability prior to considering other candidates and thus failed to follow the selection procedures applicable to 15-day candidates under ST/AI/2006/3. The respondent argued that the candidate was given priority consideration and was found unsuitable for the post. UNDT found that the applicant’s suitability was determined immediately following her interview and before any other candidates were interviewed or considered. The programme manager was a member of the interview panel and therefore the applicant received priority consideration under ST/AI/2006/3. Although the applicant was assessed as unsuitable, the programme manager thought that it might be necessary to consider her further for reasons of urgency, provided that no other candidate were found suitable. UNDT found that this did not mean that the applicant was suitable. The applicant complained that the finding of her unsuitability was inconsistent with her performance assessment system (PAS) reports and the interview panel should have consulted her supervisor before making its adverse assessment. UNDT found that the Panel was able to evaluate the applicant fairly by considering the PAS reports and was not bound to consult her supervisor. UNDT found that there was no unfair or unreasonable delay in notifying the applicant of her non-selection. Outcome: The application was dismissed.
The applicant contested the decision not to select her for the position of Arabic Reviser.
Priority consideration: If a 15-day candidate is considered after the 15-day mark, he or she is still entitled to priority consideration separately from 30- and 60-day candidates. The order of interviews of candidates is not strictly relevant as long as 15-day candidates are considered first, but practical compliance with sec 7.1 of ST/AI/2006/3 requires the determination of suitability to be made before the other candidates are interviewed; otherwise, it would be difficult to persuade UNDT that sec 7.1 was complied with.Suitability, meaning: The requirement of priority in sec 7.1 of ST/AI/2006/3 applies only to truly suitable candidates. Staff must be measured against reasonable and practical standards.Assessment by the interview panel: The weight to be afforded to the applicant’s PAS and the determination of whether the applicant’s supervisor should be asked for information are matters for the interview panel’s judgment and will not be a vitiating error unless manifest unreasonableness is demonstrated.Notification of non-selection: Unsuccessful applicants should be notified shortly after the decision on their non-selection is finalized. The delay, if any, should not be excessive or unreasonable.