2017-惇蹋厙AT-792 | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

2017-惇蹋厙AT-792, Chhikara

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

惇蹋厙AT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and Mr Chhikara. 惇蹋厙AT held that 惇蹋厙DT erred when it considered that it did not need the missing evidence of the 25 situation questions and their ※key§ answers, which directly related to the written test which Mr Chhikara failed. 惇蹋厙AT held that, by rejecting Mr Chhikara＊s request for the missing evidence and judging the case without it, 惇蹋厙DT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and also committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. 惇蹋厙AT noted that the interests of justice and judicial economy may be served by 惇蹋厙DT establishing standard rules of evidence and discovery motion practice; and further, that when 惇蹋厙DT compels production, it should require full compliance. 惇蹋厙AT partially granted the appeals, remanded the consolidated case to 惇蹋厙DT for additional findings of fact, and to be judged anew by the same Judge after affording the parties an opportunity to comment on the new evidence, and vacated the 惇蹋厙DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr Chhikara contested his non-selection for a position. 惇蹋厙DT granted the application in part. 惇蹋厙DT found a number of procedural irregularities and that Mr Chhikara＊s right to be fully and fairly considered for the post had been breached because he was unlawfully filtered out based on unapproved pre-screening questions and was not directly evaluated by the Panel. 惇蹋厙DT concluded that rescission of the decision would be disproportionate and awarded Mr Chhikara compensation for the procedural violations.

Legal Principle(s)

Relevant evidence should be presented to 惇蹋厙DT. When 惇蹋厙DT compels the production of evidence, it should require full compliance with its order.

Outcome

Appeal granted in part

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 惇蹋厙DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 惇蹋厙AT 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

Chhikara

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry