��ż���

Selection processes and job openingsThe Tribunal appreciates that the selection process for a post starts with the creation of a job opening (sec. 3.1 of the Hiring Manager’s Manual) and ends when the Head of the Office/Department makes the selection decision (sec. 14.3.7 of the Hiring Manager’s Manual). A new job opening represents the beginning of a new selection process and cannot be created and or viewed as a continuation of a previous selection process that has been initiated by the publication of the first job opening for the same post. Composition of assessment panelThe Tribunal notes that Mr. M.O., Director, DGACM, participated as a member of the assessment panels for both JO 19376 and JO 21524. As a member of the assessment panel for JO 19376, he already assessed the Applicant as not being suitable to be recommended for the Post. The Tribunal appreciates that this member of the panel was no longer in a position to make an impartial decision regarding the Applicant’s competencies for the Post and he should not have been assigned by the Hiring Manager as a member of the second assessment panel. The Applicant, who was not informed until August 2012 that he was not recommended by the panel for JO 19376, was not in a position to exercise his right to recuse this panelist.Different treatment of candidatesIn the present case, only two of the candidates considered for JO 21524, Ms. L and Ms. V, were evaluated on both the essay test and the competency-based interview by the same assessors—the panel for JO 21524. The rest of the candidates were evaluated by two different panels of assessors—the essay was evaluated by the assessment panel for JO 19376 and the interview was conducted and evaluated by the assessment panel for JO 21524. This resulted in different treatment of the candidates, without an objective and reasonable justification, and despite the fact that all of them had an identical status—short-listed candidates for JO 21524. The Tribunal found that procedural irregularities related to the issuance of JO 19376 and JO 21524 affected the rights of the Applicant. Specifically, (a) the Applicant was not advised of the reason for the reissuance of the job opening; (b) the work experience requirement for the Post was altered in the second job opening; (c) JO 19376 and JO 21524 were not advertised for the full 60-day period stipulated in sec. 4.8 of ST/AI/2010/3. The Tribunal also found that the selection process for JO 21524 was flawed because: (a) the assessment panel for the JO 21524 included one member from the assessment panel for JO 19376, which had previously evaluated the Applicant as not possessing the required competencies; and (b) the essays of candidates were marked by different assessment panels. The Tribunal found that that the selection decision was made in accordance with the requirements of the job opening and that there was no evidence that improper motives or bias influenced the decision. The Tribunal noted that the Organization’s records relating to the assessment of the candidates were incomplete. The Tribunal concluded that selection process was procedurally flawed, which affected the right of the Applicant to receive full and fair consideration. However, the Tribunal found that he had no right to be selected for the Post and that, in the absence of an express request for moral damages, the judgment itself constituted reasonable and sufficient relief.