¹ú²úAV

UNAT held that the case was fully and fairly considered by UNDT. UNAT found no error of law or fact in the UNDT decision. UNAT held that UNDT thoroughly considered the material facts of the case at issue and found that the qualification the Appellant had attained was not the equivalent of the required first-level university degree. UNAT held that there was no error of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that the UNDT conclusions were consistent with the evidence and that the Appellant did not put forward any persuasive grounds to warrant interference by UNAT. UNAT held that the Appellant did not establish any error in the UNDT determination that she was ineligible for a one-time amnesty for staff members under Section 6 of ST/AI/2018/5, since this provision applies to staff members who requested a review of their degrees under Section 4 of ST/AI/2018/5. UNAT held that there was no error in the UNDT finding that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision not to renew her contract was tainted by improper motives, unfairness, or lack of transparency. UNAT held that the lack of the minimum educational requirement on her part constituted a valid reason proffered by the Administration for not renewing her contract. UNAT held that since no illegality was found, there was no justification for the award of compensation. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.