Íæż½ã½ã

Presumption of regularity. There is always a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed, but this presumption is rebuttable. If the Respondent is able to even minimally show that the Applicant’s candidature was given a full and fair consideration, which he did not in the present case, then the presumption of law stands satisfied. Once a minimal showing has been made, the burden of proof thereafter shift to the Applicant, who need to show through clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance of promotion. Cancelling the first selection exercise and reissuing a new vacancy announcement. ST/AI/2002/4 did not authorize, even implicitly, the USG to cancel the first selection exercise and to reissue a new vacancy announcement for the Post following the input from the DPI Focal Point for Women. Intervening in the selection exercise. The requirements of ST/AI/1999/9 and ST/AI/2002/4 regarding the participation of the FPW/DPI and Office of Human Resources Management were not properly observed. Outcome: Applicant awarded the sum of eight months’ net base pay in effect in January 2006, as non-pecuniary compensation for the substantial and unwarranted irregularities in the selection process (loss of chance/opportunity)