UNDT/2010/065, Krioutchkov
Outcome: Application dismissed, but the applicant awarded USD500 in nominal compensation for not being informed in time.
The applicant, a permanent staff member who has served as a translator at the P-3 level for 18 years, applied for another translator post at the P-3 level with another duty station as a 15-day’s internal candidate. He was not selected for interview at the outset but, after other non-15-day candidates were tested and interviewed, it was decided to test and interview him. The panel considered that he did not satisfy the job requirements, including one concerning self-revision of translations. Instead, an external 60-days’ candidate was appointed.
The internal advertisement: Nothing impedes the Administration from advertising a post on Galaxy even though an internal vacancy announcement has already been issued. That the applicant did not receive the internal vacancy announcement was unfortUNATe, but did not have any legal consequences. Drafting job advertisements. Filling a P-4 post at the P-3 level is improper, but differentiating one of several requirements in the specific job description from the generic job profile may well be proper; it is a question of the degree and nature of departure. The drafter of the job profile should not be influenced by extraneous or ulterior motives when drafting the job requirement. The circumstance that self-revision under the generic job profile is a requirement for P-4 translator positions and not for P-3 positions is not by itself determinative, since a comparison of the two classifications shows a range of differences of which this is but one. The scope of the judicial review: It is not for the judge to decide whether the relevant decision-makers were correct when they determined that an applicant did not have the required skills for the post and the judge is, at all events, not qualified to do so – the contestable obligation of the Administration is that a fair consideration of the candidacy is undertaken in good faith and in accordance with the applicable instruments. Where a significant error is patent, the decision must be held to be a breach of the staff member's contract. On occasions, the material appears to show that all is in order but the resulting decision is so unreasonable or plainly unjust that it should be inferred that a latent error had occurred. In such a case, even though the error itself cannot be identified, the outcome will be sufficient to establish its existence and, hence, the breach of contract. If a decision is manifestly unreasonable or unjust this provides cogent evidence that something has gone seriously wrong with the process and bespeaks significant error of one kind or other. Evaluating a candidate’s qualification. When assessing a candidates qualifications, all relevant attributes, both those which are stipulated as essential and those specified as desirable must be evaluated to enable his or her suitability to be determined. A candidate might well be suitable to be short-listed for interview and yet demonstrate that, in the result, he or she is not suitable for appointment. Informing an unsuccessful interviewed candidate. The programme manager is obliged, under sec 9.5 of ST/AI/2006/3 to inform unsuccessful interviewed candidates of their non-selection. It is implied that the information must be conveyed within a reasonable time. To leave these candidates to discover their lack of success by checking a later Galaxy announcement showing the position as filled does not satisfy this requirement.