UNDT/2014/044, Lennard
The Tribunal found that the selected candidates, which were endorsed by the Central Review Board, were graded above the Applicant and that there was no merit to his claim of impropriety regarding the selection process which was lawful and was not tainted by bias or other improper considerations. Participation of former incumbent in selection process: The Hiring Manager’s Manual does not limit an incumbent’s involvement with regard to the selection of his or her successor for a post that has already been vacated. Therefore his presence on the interview panel did not affect any of the Applicant’s rights. Evaluation criteria: In the present case, the vacancy announcement identified the method by which each candidate was to be evaluated for the job openings. There is no reference to the Applicant’s argument that supporting documentation of any kind could, should or was going to be used as part of the assessment method of the qualified candidates under consideration. While it may be helpful for an interview panel to take a staff member’s performance appraisal into consideration when conducting its assessment, the panel’s decision not to do so did not constitute a breach of any procedural requirement nor does it support any inference or conclusion that failure to do so constituted a material irregularity or was unfair to the Applicant.
The Applicant appealed his non-selection, and the selection of another candidate for two job openings on the grounds that: the selection process breached the applicable rules; the Hiring Manager, as a former incumbent of the post should not have been part of the interview panel; and the Applicant’s electronic appraisal system (“ePas”) reports were not taken into account.
N/A