����AV

Full and fair consideration: In the absence of concrete, convincing evidence, the mere fact that it is possible, theoretically, to alter/tamper a written test will not suffice for the Tribunal to conclude that an Applicant’s candidature was not given full and fair consideration. Also, where no one of the people involved in the administration of the test had a motive to manipulate it, the Tribunal will not find that the decision had been influenced by extraneous factors. The burden of proof in these matters lies on the Applicant. Good management practice: The Administration should take measures to protect tests so that there is no risk for them to be modified while they are in the custody of the Organization. Further, such a delicate matter as the administration of a written test should not be entrusted to a Consultant, who is not subject to the Staff Rules and Regulations, and therefore to the standards of accountability and integrity that relate to them, but merely to UNICEF Administrative Instruction governing Consultants and individual contractors (CF/AI/2013-001 Amend 2). Moreover, by entrusting what appears to be staff functions to a consultant, the Administration may have contravened the above administrative instruction. However, when the evidence leaves no doubt that the test was not altered and its administration was not manipulated, any irregularity to entrust the administration of the test to the Human Resources Assistant will not impact on a staff member’s right to full and fair consideration. Reassignment: Where the relevant administrative instruction foresees the possibility (“may”) of lateral reassignment of a staff member, such reassignment may fall within the discretionary authority of the Organization, but it is not mandatary to consider the staff member for it. Mootness: Where a selection exercise is repeated, since in the first round, no candidate was found suitable, and the Applicant is invited, again, for the written test (and fails at the level of the interview), the Tribunal would not be in a position to grant the requested relief, namely, the repetition of the selection exercise. Thus, any rescission of the contested decision would not serve any purpose, as the relief sought cannot be granted due to the supervening events.