ÍæÅ¼½ã½ã

UNDT/2010/134

UNDT/2010/134, Liarski

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNDT found that the requirement of progressively responsible experience in the vacancy announcement was in line with the generic job profile and was not prejudicial to the applicant. The applicant’s arguments were in any case without merit as all the candidates interviewed by the selection panel had at least ten years of experience. UNDT found that, although the Organisation failed to properly carry out and document its consideration for the designation of the successful candidate to perform significant functions in financial management, this did not result in a violation of the applicant’s rights. UNDT found that there was no evidence of discrimination against the applicant and that the selection did not suffer from procedural errors such as to vitiate the outcome of the process. The application was dismissed.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The applicant appealed the decision not to select him for a P-5 level post of a Senior Programme Budget Officer, alleging that he was not given full and fair consideration for the post and that the vacancy announcement improperly deviated from the generic job profile in that it did not require ten years of experience.

Legal Principle(s)

Vacancy announcement and generic job profile: Requirements differing from those expressed in a generic job profile which are seen as necessary or desirable for the particular post are permitted, provided that the drafters of the vacancy announcement are not influenced by extraneous or ulterior motives when drafting the job requirement. Full and fair consideration: Staff members have a right to be fully and fairly considered for promotion through a competitive selection process untainted by improper factors. Scope of UNDT’s review: Generally, UNDT will not substitute its decision for that of the Administration in the discretionary matters of appointment and promotion, but UNDT may examine whether the selection process was carried out in an improper, irregular or otherwise flawed manner and assess whether the resulting decision was tainted by undue considerations or was manifestly unreasonable. Designation to perform significant functions: The evaluation and selection of applicants under ST/AI/2006/3 and the provision of clearance to perform significant functions under ST/SGB/2005/7 are distinct and separate processes. A documented record of the designation process must exist.

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.

Applicants/Appellants
Liarski
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type