����AV

UNDT held that it was satisfied that there were sound reasons supporting the Secretary-General of UNCTAD’s decision to cancel the job opening, but noted that it would have been desirable to undertake and complete a gender/geographical balance assessment at an early stage of the recruitment process. UNDT disagreed with the Applicant that the impunged decision was an act of discrimination against him. UNDT held that the decision constituted permissible and lawful affirmative action on the part of the Organization to reach gender and geographical goals set by the UN General Assembly. UNDT also held that ST/AI/1999/9 was not retroactively applied since it was in place at the time of the recruitment process. UNDT held that the principle of estoppel was not applicable in this case because there was no right being asserted that contradicted a previous agreement by law, the “gender-parity” policy was already in place at the time the post was opened for recruitment, and the recruitment process was not finalized since none of the two recommended candidates were appointed. UNDT held that the cancellation of the job opening was not an abusive exercise of administrative discretion by the Secretary-General of UNCTAD and, consequently, the contested decision was lawful. UNDT rejected the application.