2018-UNAT-849, Kule Kongba
UNAT held that the lack of the nationality requirement on the Appellant’s part constituted a valid reason for not renewing his fixed-term appointment. Further, that the Administration previously granting the Appellant successive contract extensions did not give grounds for an expectancy of renewal unless the Administration had made him an express promise in writing, which it did not. Moreover, UNAT noted that an Administration has a duty to rectify its own errors and, when it commits an irregularity in the recruitment procedure, it is inclined to take appropriate measures to correct the situation. UNAT held that UNDT did not make any error of law or fact in dismissing the Appellant’s challenge of the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment and, thus, could not award any compensation. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed UNDT’s judgment.
Before the UNDT, the Applicant contested the decision not to renew his appointment and underpayment of his salary between certain dates. UNDT found that the Applicant did not fulfil the eligibility criteria for the position he occupied and that the Administration had erred in initially appointing him. UNDT found that it had no jurisdiction over the Applicant’s claim of underpayment because, during the relevant time, he was employed on an SSA and not a staff member. Moreover, UNDT held that the underpayment application was time-barred. UNDT dismissed the application in its entirety.
Fixed-term appointments or appointments of limited duration carry no expectation of renewal or conversion to another type of appointment. Previous contract grants, on part of an Administration, do not give grounds for an expectancy of renewal, unless the Administration made an express promise in writing. The staff rule relevant to posts subject to local recruitment specifically provides that National Professional Officers shall be of the nationality of the country where the office concerned is located An Administration has a duty to rectify its own errors and, when it commits an irregularity in the recruitment procedure, it is inclined to take appropriate measures to correct the situation. When judging the validity of the Secretary-General’s exercise of discretion in administrative matters, as in the case of a non-renewal decision, the Dispute Tribunal determines if the decision is legal, rational, procedurally correct, and proportionate. The Dispute Tribunal can consider whether relevant matters have been ignored and irrelevant matters considered, and also examine whether the decision is absurd or perverse. But it is not the role of the Dispute Tribunal to consider the correctness of the choice made by the Secretary-General amongst the various courses of action open to him. Nor is it the role of the Dispute Tribunal to substitute its own decision for that of the Secretary-General.