¹ú²úAV

UNAT held that there was nothing in the applicable law in force at the time of the events which formed a basis for the Administration’s practice of removing the candidates’ names from the language roster once they had been recruited or placed against a position. UNAT held that the removal of a candidate from the roster prevented the Administration from evaluating and reassigning or selecting a candidate for a similar post in another duty station. UNAT held that the Appellant’s removal from the roster adversely impacted his potential ability for mobility and for obtaining additional incentives related to such mobility. Noting that the job opening did not make it clear that only roster candidates were eligible, UNAT held that the practice did not meet the principles of transparency and access to information, which allow for openness, accountability, and good governance, the values of the Organisation. UNAT held that the practice at the time, even though now partially legalized by ST/AI/2020/3, was not supported by the applicable legal framework at the time of the events and was, therefore, unlawful. UNAT granted the appeal, vacated the UNDT judgment, rescinded the decision to remove the Appellant from the selection process for the position, and set compensation in lieu of rescission.