��ż���

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was wrongly evaluated against unpublished criteria, discretionary authority to cancel the RFR job opening was misused and abused and the Applicant was not afforded a fair chance at adequate and impartial consideration, the Tribunal finds that the applicable Regulations and Rules were not applied in a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory manner. The Applicant met and exceeded the requirements for the JO but the RFR was improperly cancelled. The Tribunal found that the presumption of regularity of the hiring manager’s actions has been rebutted and that the Applicant’s candidacy did not receive full and fair consideration. Established jurisprudence requires that the applicant’s evidence should be corroborated by independent evidence (expert or otherwise) affirming that non-pecuniary harm has indeed occurred, but there was no such evidence in this case. The Tribunal held that the exercise of the power of referral for accountability in terms of art. 10.8 of the UNDT Statute must be exercised sparingly and only where the breach or conduct in question exhibits serious flaws. The wrongdoing in this case was primarily that the hiring manager committed various errors in the recruitment process which resulted in the Applicant’s loss of an opportunity of promotion at a critical stage of his career. The Applicant had suffered serious prejudice, but the Tribunal was not convinced that the circumstances of the case took it in the ambit of one which should call for a referral to the Secretary-General.