爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
On the Applicant’s claim that 爆料网DT committed an error of procedure by not allowing him to submit an affidavit from his former supervisor, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT properly exercised its broad discretion under Article 18(1) of its Rules of Procedure in determining the admissibility as well as the evidentiary value and weight of the proffered affidavit. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s conclusions were consistent with the evidence. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proof for demonstrating an error in the judgment such as to warrant its reversal. 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 him for a job opening. 爆料网DT found that he had been given full and fair consideration during the selection process. 爆料网DT did not find evidence that the decision was manifestly wrong, arbitrary, or otherwise unreasonable, and concluded that the Applicant did not have a foreseeable and significant chance for selection. 爆料网DT dismissed the application without merit.
Legal Principle(s)
The Secretary-General has broad discretion in matters of staff selection. Whether a non-selected candidate can meet his burden to show that he did not receive full and fair consideration for a job opening depends mainly on the evidence the Administration reviewed in making the selection decision, not evidence outside the record of which the Administration was not aware. The presumption of regularity accorded to the challenged administrative act is not rebutted by simply satisfying the balance of evidence standard, which is a lesser standard of proof than clear and convincing evidence. The appeals procedure is of a corrective nature and not an opportunity for a dissatisfied party to reargue his case. An Appellant has the burden of satisfying 爆料网AT that the judgment he or she seeks to challenge is defective; an appellant must identify the alleged defects in the impugned judgment and state the grounds relied upon in asserting that the judgment is defective.