UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or in fact in its assessment that the issue before it was the amount of compensation. UNAT held that UNDT鈥檚 approach in considering the Appellant鈥檚 prospects of success was entirely reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case. UNAT held that it was not the function of UNDT or UNAT to take on the substantive role with which the interview panel was charged and to find that the Appellant was the only qualified candidate. UNAT recalled that the jurisdiction vested in UNDT is to review alleged procedural deficiencies and to rectify any which are...