Home

Section 7.7 of ST/AI/2006/3 provides as follows: Programme Managers shall transmit their proposal for one candidate or, preferably, a list of qualified, unranked candidates to the appropriate central review body through the head of department/office after 15-, 30-, or 60-day mark. The head of department/office shall ensure that, in making the proposal, he or she has taken into account the Organization’s human resources planning objectives and targets, especially with regard to geography and gender, and provide a certification to that effect to the central review body… 33. (...) Was the allegation that the cancellation of the first vacancy announcement targeted the Applicant’s candidacy well-founded? Was the cancellation made in order to afford the incumbent an opportunity to apply for the post? (...) While I hesitate to make a finding as to whether the Applicant’s candidature was the target of the December 2007 cancellation, the signals are nevertheless most disturbing.

Whenever possible, interviews should be competencybased and conducted by an ad hoc panel. 7.6 For each vacancy, the programme manager shall prepare a reasoned and documented record of the evaluation of the proposed candidates against the applicable evaluation criteria to allow for review by the central review body and/or decision by the head of the department/office. 7.7 Programme managers shall transmit their proposal for one candidate or, preferably, a list of qualified, unranked candidates to the appropriate central review body through the head of department/office after the 15-, 30- or 60-day mark. The head of department/office shall ensure that, in making the proposal, he or she has taken into account the Organization’s human resources planning objectives and targets, especially with regard to geography and gender, and provide a certification to that effect to the central review body. (...) UNDT/2011/035 Page 12 of 17 other responsible officials in the department/office concerned to ensure that: … (b) The candidates best suited for the functions are selected for vacancies in strict compliance with the requirements of the new system, having taken into account the Organization’s human resources objectives and targets as reflected in the departmental human resources action plan, especially with regard to geography and gender, and after giving the fullest regard to candidates already in the service of the Organization; … 40. (...) … Eligibility to be considered at the 30-day mark 5.5 The following staff members shall be eligible to be considered at the 30-day mark: Translated from French Case No.

Under ST/AI/2006/3 (Staff selection system), sec. 9.2, the head of office (in this case, the USG/DPI) possessed the authority to select the candidate that s/he considered the best suited for the functions of the position, having due regard for the Organization’s human resources objectives and targets, and he did so in the present case; f. The evidence clearly demonstrates that the decision to accept the FPW/DPI’s advice was not only reasonable, but it was in conformity with ST/AI/1999/9 on gender equality in selection and appointment; g. (...) UNDT/2011/099 evaluation criteria have been properly applied and/or that the applicable procedures have been followed. … 9.2 The head of department/office shall select the candidate he or she considers to be best suited for the functions, having taken into account the Organization’s human resources objectives and targets as reflected in the departmental human resources action plan, especially with regard to geography and gender, and shall give the fullest regard to candidates already in the service of the Organization (...) Under ST/AI/2002/4, based on the PM’s reasoned record of the evaluation of each of the short-listed candidates (see sec. 7.6), the PM was to forward a list of recommended candidates to the appropriate central review body (in the present case, the CRC) through the head of department/office, who—when making the initial selection proposal—was to ensure that (emphasis added) “the Organization’s human resources planning objectives and targets [were met], especially with regard to geography and gender, and provide a certification to that effect to the central review body” (see sec. 7.7). 44.

Section 7.7 of ST/AI/2006/3 provides as follows: Programme Managers shall transmit their proposal for one candidate or, preferably, a list of qualified, unranked candidates to the appropriate central review body through the head of department/office after 15-, 30-, or 60-day mark. The head of department/office shall ensure that, in making the proposal, he or she has taken into account the Organization’s human resources planning objectives and targets, especially with regard to geography and gender, and provide a certification to that effect to the central review body… Case No. (...) Was the allegation that the cancellation of the first vacancy announcement targeted the Applicant’s candidacy well-founded? (...) The same Programme Manager was convinced of his prerogative and discretion to mix and evaluate together all candidates whether at the15-day, 30-day or 60-day mark. 70. In the case of the ED, I am of the view that on being sent an unranked list of recommended candidates, she only had the discretion to examine it against the Organisation’s human resources planning objectives and targets, especially with regard to geography and gender and send it on with a certification to that effect to the CRB. 71.