¹ú²úAV

UNAT held that the decision not to short-list the Appellant was an internal step within the selection process and not an administrative decision and that UNDT should have only received her application against the selection decision. UNAT held that the appeal was defective in that the Appellant did not clearly define the grounds of appeal as required under Article 2. 1 of the UNAT Statute, however, UNAT considered the appeal on the basis that the Appellant was self-represented. UNAT rejected the Appellant’s allegation that the case management of UNDT was flawed. UNAT held that the re-classification of the post in question was lawful and reasonable. UNAT agreed with UNDT that the Hiring Manager used a lawful and reasonable standard regarding the requirement of significant language-related management experience. UNAT held that it had no reason to doubt the UNDT finding that this standard was consistently applied to all candidates. UNAT considered that it was obvious that the Appellant did not fulfil the requirement of significant management experience and therefore it was lawful not to short-list or select her for the position. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in stating that the Appellant’s roster status had no impact on the selection process or that she had not been unduly denied the opportunity to acquire in-house managerial experience. UNAT agreed with UNDT that the Appellant did not present any evidence to show that the decision not to short-list or select her was motivated by extraneous factors. UNAT held that absent any illegality, there could be no compensation awarded. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.