爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
Mr. Farhadi appealed. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal. 爆料网AT dismissed Mr. Farhadi's contention that the successful candidate had not been subject to the mandatory vetting procedure. The mere indication by the Hiring Manager of the fact that “[b]oth candidates have worked with women and trade previously” under the rubric “Reference check” was not sufficient to conclude that there were no actual reference checks. 爆料网AT held that more importantly, reference checks normally take place only once the selection has been concluded, and in the present case, Mr. Farhadi was not selected. 爆料网AT found that in addition this argument had been raised for the first time on appeal which as such was not admissible. 爆料网AT also dismissed the allegation that the Secretary-General had tampered with evidence; that argument was also raised for the first time on appeal; and in any event, 爆料网AT would be satisfied with the explanation provided by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT concluded that there was therefore no attempt by the Secretary-General to tamper with evidence, nor was there interference with the integrity of the proceedings before the 爆料网DT, and hence, there was no reason for an investigation to be ordered by the Appeals Tribunal. 爆料网AT found speculative and without merit Mr. Farhadi's contention that a member of the assessment panel had a conflict of interest since he could act as a potential reference of the selected candidate. Based on the facts, 爆料网AT was satisified that the selection process had proceeded according to the applicable guidelines and policies; the selection panel was properly constituted and there was no evidence of bias or ulterior motive.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Mr. Farhadi challenged before the 爆料网DT his non-selection for a fixed-term and a temporary position. The 爆料网DT dismissed the application. As to the selection process for the fixed-term position, the 爆料网DT found that, based on the record, Mr. Farhadi was not eligible for this position because he did not meet the required criteria. This was recorded in the electronic selection system and had been communicated to Mr. Farhadi. While Mr. Farhadi disagreed with this assessment of his qualifications, the 爆料网DT found no ground to question the hiring manager’s evaluation in that respect. As for the alleged bias against Mr. Farhadi, the 爆料网DT noted that none of the personnel suspected of bias by Mr. Farhadi had been involved in assessing his eligibility. The 爆料网DT found that the claim of bias was unfounded. The 爆料网DT consequently concluded that Mr. Farhadi’s candidature had been fully and fairly considered and that the non-selection decision was lawful. Turning to the temporary position, the 爆料网DT reviewed the evidence and considered unsupported Mr. Farhadi’s claim of bias on the part of his former second reporting officer (who was part of the assessment panel), the hiring manager for the temporary position, and the Director for the ITC Division (who endorsed the selection recommendation for this position). The 爆料网DT also found that, contrary to Mr. Farhadi’s claim, there was no evidence of the absence of a genuine competitive selection process. The 爆料网DT noted that there was no requirement in the internal rules that a minimum number of candidates had to be called to take the written test and the interview. In addition, the assessment of the two candidates was fully documented, and Mr. Farhadi was provided detailed feedback when he requested it. The 爆料网DT noted that Mr. Farhadi got the lowest score on the written test and did not pass the interview. Finally, the 爆料网DT rejected Mr. Farhadi’s claim that the selection process was vitiated by procedural shortcomings. The 爆料网DT found no breach of internal rules and no evidence of lack of transparency or procedural irregularities. It also rejected Mr. Farhadi’s contention that the subject matter of the written test was such as to favour the selected candidate noting the general nature of the written test’s subject matter and the candidates’ professional experience.
Legal Principle(s)
The Dispute Tribunal may only rescind a selection or promotion process in “extremely rare circumstances”. When a candidate has received fair consideration, without discrimination or bias, with proper procedures, and when all relevant material has been taken into account, the Dispute Tribunal shall uphold the selection exercise. In reviewing administrative decisions regarding appointments and promotions, the Appeals Tribunal has established the factors to be considered as follows: (a) whether the procedure as laid down in the applicable legal framework was followed; (b) whether the staff member was given fair and adequate consideration; and (c) whether the applicable Regulations and Rules were applied in a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory manner. The Tribunal’s role is not to substitute its decision for that of the Administration. If the Administration is able to show, even minimally, that the applicant’s candidature was given a full and fair consideration, then the presumption of regularity applies and the burden of proof shifts to the applicant who must show through clear and convincing evidence that he or she was denied a fair chance of promotion or selection.