¹ú²úAV

UNDT/2021/115

UNDT/2021/115, MOULANA

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

Having reviewed the record, the Tribunal concluded that proper procedures were followed during the selection exercise and that the Applicant received full and fair consideration for the TJO# 136259. The record showed that the Applicant was shortlisted and invited for the interview and was subsequently recommended by the hiring manager to the Head of Mission for selection. However, the hiring manager proposed another candidate for selection as the most suitable candidate because that other candidate had received a higher rating for the competencies of Planning and Organizing and Client Orientation than did the Applicant. The Tribunal also noted that the selected candidate was more suitable than the Applicant, as evidenced by the comparative analysis report and the selection memorandum. The Tribunal held that the Applicant had produced no evidence of bias or any procedural breach in the selection process. 

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested UNMISS’s decision to not select him for the position of Requisitions Officer, advertised through Job Opening No. 136259.

Legal Principle(s)

The paramount consideration in the employment of United Nations staff is the necessity of securing the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity, and, for this purpose, competitive processes are to be applied. According to the jurisprudence of the Tribunal, in staff selection matters, the starting point is the presumption that official functions have been regularly performed. This presumption is satisfied where management minimally shows that the staff member’s candidature was given fair and adequate consideration. Once management satisfies this initial requirement, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show through clear and convincing evidence that he was not given fair and adequate consideration. 

Outcome
Dismissed on merits
Outcome Extra Text

 

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants
MOULANA
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry :
Date of Judgement
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type