2019-UNAT-947, Madhoun
UNAT noted that in the absence of a university degree, the Appellant did not satisfy the academic criterion stated in the vacancy announcement, but he was long-listed, which meant that UNRWA took his experience into consideration and decided that his additional years of experience justified his pre-selection. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred in fact in considering that UNRWA did not examine whether the experience of the Appellant could offset his lack of a university degree. UNAT held that the decision by UNRWA to limit the short-list to seven candidates with university degrees was reasonable and in the absence of allegations of bias or discriminatory application, the criterion related to the university degree was reasonable and could be used without any additional reference to the experience of the candidate. UNAT further ruled that UNRWA DT erred in law in considering that UNRWA did not properly apply the criteria described in the vacancy announcement. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNRWA DT judgment.
The Applicant contested his non-selection for a position. UNRWA DT held that the Applicant had been unlawfully excluded from the short-list of candidates for not possessing a university degree when UNRWA had improperly applied the criteria described in its vacancy announcement, namely that a “university degree of equivalent experience” was required. UNRWA DT rescinded the impugned decision.
Judicial review of a staff selection decision is not for the purpose of substituting the UNDT’s decision for that of the Administration. The starting point for judicial review is the rebuttable presumption that official acts have been regularly performed.