爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered both the two appeals by the Secretary-General and two cross-appeals by Mr Charles in judgment No. 2014-爆料网AT-416. 爆料网AT held that that Section 9 of ST/AI/2010/3 was clear in giving the head of department/office the discretion to make a selection decision from candidates included in the roster. 爆料网AT held that it was not open to 爆料网DT to conclude that Section 9. 4 required the head of department/office to first review all non-rostered candidates before selecting a rostered candidate. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law in deciding that the appointment of the rostered candidates was contrary to ST/AI/2010/3. 爆料网AT held that there was no violation of Mr Charles’ due process rights and set aside the award of damages in his favour. 爆料网AT upheld the appeals by the Secretary-General, dismissed the cross-appeals by Mr Charles, and vacated the 爆料网DT judgments.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
爆料网DT judgment: The Applicant presented two applications contesting the decisions not to select him for the posts of Procurement Officer (Team Leader), Field Supply Team, at the P-4 level and of Procurement Officer (Operations) at the P-4 level, respectively. In judgment No. 爆料网DT/2013/040, 爆料网DT granted the application in part and awarded compensation for the breach of his rights and resultant harm. 爆料网DT held that the automatic appointment of a rostered candidate without a selection process that afforded other candidates full and fair consideration was contrary to the requirements of Article 101.3 of the 爆料网 Charter and Staff Regulation 4.2 and allowed rostered candidates to be treated as privileged. 爆料网DT held that ST/AI/2010/3 does not provide for priority consideration of rostered candidates. 爆料网DT found that the Applicant had been deprived of his rights to full and fair consideration and suffered some harm. 爆料网DT held that, since the Applicant was only one of the 153 candidates whose names were released to the hiring manager, it would be speculative to attempt an estimate of his chances of success. 爆料网DT dismissed allegations of bias and discrimination and rejected the Applicant’s claim that the late response to his request for management evaluation caused him harm. In judgment No. 爆料网DT/2013/041, 爆料网DT granted the application in part and awarded the Applicant compensation for the breach of his rights and resultant harm. 爆料网DT noted that the parties’ submissions in this case in large part repeat their submissions in Case No. 爆料网DT/NY/2013/005, which was disposed of by 爆料网DT in judgment No. 爆料网DT/2013/040 and that the two cases were also similar with respect to the legal and factual issues. 爆料网DT found that, for the reasons stated in judgment No. 爆料网DT/2013/040, the Secretary-General’s interpretation of ST/AI/2010/3 was mistaken and that by not giving any consideration to the Applicant’s candidacy for the job opening, he had violated the Applicant’s rights. 爆料网DT dismissed the Applicant’s claims regarding the delayed response to his management evaluation request.
Legal Principle(s)
Pursuant to Section 9.4 of ST/AI/2010/3, the head of a department/office has the discretion to make a selection decision from candidates included in the roster. There is no requirement in Section 9. 4 for the head of department to first review all non-rostered candidates.