2018-UNAT-887, Elayyan
UNAT considered the Appellant’s Motion for Leave to Submit Additional Evidence, his appeal, and the Commissioner-General's cross-appeal. UNAT found that the Applicant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would justify the filing of any additional documentary evidence and denied his motion. UNAT held that the claim in Appellant’s Appeal was not initially brought before UNRWA DT and could not be introduced for the first time before UNAT. UNAT held that the Commissioner-General's cross-appeal was entirely without merit and that UNRWA DT was correct to find that the irregularity “is of such significance as it could well have affected the outcome of the recruitment process” and that the decision not to select the Appellant must be rescinded. UNAT dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal.
The Applicant contested the decision to not select him for the post. UNRWA DT found that the Interview Panel had been composed in an irregular manner and ordered rescission of the decision.
The absence of a representative of the Recruitment Administrator with voting rights renders the composition of the Interview Panel irregular. Compliance with this requirement is not optional, as the intention of this provision is that the vote of the representative of the Recruitment Administrator will be one of the components of the Interview Panel’s recommendation.