����AV

In the Applicant’s view, the Hiring Manager’s alleged favoritism of the candidate finally selected was evidenced by the 19-month delay in advertising the post and a change in the standard language of the experience requirements, without which the successful candidate would have been ineligible. However, the evidence showed that said factors did not have a significant impact on the candidate’s eligibility. Moreover, the slight lowering of the experience criterion was not originated by the Hiring Manager and, while he delayed the advertising he did so to ensure his alternative employment in case he was not successful in another selection process for a higher graded post pending at that time in which he was a candidate. Also, the procedural shortcomings alleged were not substantiated, notably the lack of two subject matter experts in the panel. Delay in filling a vacancy: While the General Assembly has requested that vacant posts be filled within 120 days, this is good practice, but not a binding obligation.Subject matter experts in the assessment panel: ST/2010/3 requires that assessment panels include two “subject matter experts”, without defining this term. The Administration has considerable discretion in determining who is such an expert. It cannot be held that panels set up for the selection of translators/revisers must necessarily include linguists specialized in the language that is central to the post in question. Two professional linguists with experience in translation and revision in other languages fulfil this requirement, particularly when the candidates’ technical skills have been evaluated through a written test and the assessment panel must only assess the other competencies.