爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT held that pursuant to Article 30 爆料网AT RoP and considering the medical condition of Appellant’s counsel, it was in the interests of justice to grant the Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file her comments on the Secretary-General’s motion to supplement his answer. 爆料网AT accepted the Appellant’s comments on the Secretary-General’s motion as timely filed. 爆料网AT denied the Secretary-General’s motion for leave to supplement his answer since his additional pleadings would not advance or assist with the disposal of the case. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had very thoroughly considered the Appellant’s claims. 爆料网AT held that Section 1. 8(a)(ii) of Administrative Instruction ST/AI/1999/9 did not apply to the case since the selected candidate had received the same ratings as the Appellant except in the competency of professionalism for which the selected candidate was rated “outstanding”. 爆料网AT held that the qualifications of the selected candidate were superior to those of the Appellant. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in finding that the ASG/OHRM’s decision to conduct a second interview was a proper exercise of discretion as a hiring manager. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision not to select her for the post of Deputy Director (DD), Medical Services Division (MSD). 爆料网DT rejected the grounds put forward by Applicant – the involvement of a retiree in the recruitment process; the composition of the interview panel; the comments made by Dr Pasquier-Castro allegedly suggesting bias; the conduct of a second interview by the Assistant Secretary-General, OHRM (ASG/OHRM); the CRB’s ignorance of procedural irregularities; and the alleged violation of the Organisation’s policies on gender parity and geographical diversity. 爆料网DT dismissed the application finding that any procedural error identified by the Applicant did not, of itself or collectively, account for the decision to appoint the successful candidate rather than the Applicant or the other recommended candidate.
Legal Principle(s)
The mere disagreement by an appellant with the 爆料网DT’s statement of its reasons or the facts and law supporting its judgment is not a basis for overturning the judgment.