ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Selection procedure (660,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Selection procedure
Total judgments found: 86

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >



  • Judgment 4153


    128th Session, 2019
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of a competition procedure in which she participated and of the appointment made at the end of that procedure.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s case law, the decision of an international organisation to make an appointment is within the discretion of its executive head. Such a decision is subject to only limited review and may be set aside only if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it was based on a mistake of law or fact, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was an abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see Judgment 3537, consideration 10). Nevertheless, anyone who applies for a post to be filled by some process of selection is entitled to have her or his application considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition. That is a right that every applicant must enjoy, whatever her or his hopes of success may be (see, inter alia, Judgment 2163, consideration 1, and the case law cited therein, as well as Judgment 3209, consideration 11). The case law also establishes that an organisation must be careful to abide by the rules on selection and, when the process proves to be flawed, the Tribunal will quash any resulting appointment, albeit on the understanding that the organisation must shield the successful candidate from any injury that may result from the setting aside of an appointment he accepted in good faith (see, for example, Judgment 3130, considerations 10 and 11).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2163, 3130, 3209, 3537

    Keywords:

    selection procedure;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; selection procedure;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s case law, an international organisation must observe the essential rule in every selection procedure, which is that the person appointed must possess the minimum qualifications specified in the vacancy notice (see Judgment 3372, consideration 19). It is also apparent from the case law that an international organisation which decides to hold a competition in order to fill a post cannot select a candidate who does not satisfy one of the required qualifications specified in the vacancy notice. Such conduct, which is tantamount to modifying the criteria for appointment to the post during the selection process, incurs the Tribunal’s censure on two counts. Firstly, it violates the principle of tu patere legem quam ipse fecisti, which forbids the Administration to ignore the rules it has itself defined. Secondly, the appointment body’s alteration, after the procedure has begun, of the qualifications which were initially required in order to obtain the post, introduces a serious flaw into the selection process with respect to the principle of equal opportunity among candidates. Irrespective of the reasons for such action, it inevitably erodes the safeguards of objectivity and transparency which must be provided in order to comply with this essential principle, a breach of which vitiates any appointment based on a competition (see Judgments 3641, consideration 4(a), or 4001, consideration 15).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3372, 3641, 4001

    Keywords:

    patere legem; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4147


    128th Session, 2019
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to retain his candidature for a post.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    In keeping with the consistent case law of the Tribunal, the complainant bears the burden of demonstrating that there was a serious defect in the selection process which had an impact on the consideration of his candidature (see Judgment 4023, consideration 2).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4023

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; selection procedure;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4100


    127th Session, 2019
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for a position for which he had applied.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [A] staff member has no entitlement or right to be selected for a contested post.

    Keywords:

    appointment; selection procedure;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [I]t is well settled that the Tribunal “may not replace the Organisation’s assessment of the applicants with its own and order any particular appointment” (Judgment 1595, under 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1595

    Keywords:

    appointment; competence of tribunal; selection procedure;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    competition; complaint allowed; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4098


    127th Session, 2019
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for a position for which he had applied.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    competition; complaint allowed; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4087


    127th Session, 2019
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition procedure in which he took part and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.

    Considerations 4 & 6

    Extract:

    The Director General’s decision to dismiss the complainant’s appeal for lack of a cause of action was based on the fact that the complainant “did not meet the requirements of the post (in terms of the minimum number of years of extensive professional experience required)”.
    The Tribunal finds this reason to be well founded. [...]
    The Director General was therefore right to consider that the complainant did not meet the condition of minimum length of professional experience stipulated in the vacancy announcement. Therefore, even though he was admitted to the competition, through an error on the part of the Organization, the complainant was not, in fact, eligible for appointment to the post in question.

    Keywords:

    cause of action; selection procedure; vacancy notice;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    In accordance with the Tribunal’s well-established case law, an official has no cause of action to challenge the decision to appoint another official to a post if she or he is not eligible for appointment to that post (see, for example, Judgments 2832, consideration 8, and 3644, consideration 7). In view of the complainant’s lack of a cause of action, all other pleas that he raises against the impugned decision are of no avail. [...]

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2832, 3644

    Keywords:

    cause of action; selection procedure; vacancy notice;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    appointment; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4070


    127th Session, 2019
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select her for a position for which she had applied.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The Tribunal holds that the complainant’s admission that she did not meet the requirements for the subject post means that she has no cause of action to challenge the shortlisting of the selected candidate or his final selection to fill the contested post. The complaint is therefore unfounded and will be dismissed.

    Keywords:

    cause of action; competition; selection procedure;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    appointment; competition; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4069


    127th Session, 2019
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the direct appointment of Mr D. and Mr A. to two D-2 level posts.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The complainant seeks an award of “actual damages, with full retroactivity, all additional salary, benefits, entitlements, including step increases and pension contributions, and any other emoluments he would have received had he been selected for either of said posts and been promoted to grade D2, from 8 July 2014 (the date of the first irregular direct appointment) through his statutory date of [...] retirement”. There is no basis for such an award which, in effect, would be material damages. Such an award cannot be made on a mere expectation that his application for either post might have been successful. However, he is entitled to 4,000 euros in moral damages for the violation of his right to compete for the posts.

    Keywords:

    material damages; moral injury; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4061


    127th Session, 2019
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to cancel the appointment of an external candidate following a recruitment procedure and not to organise a new procedure open to internal candidates only.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    competition; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4033


    126th Session, 2018
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant primarily challenges his non-selection for a post.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4027


    126th Session, 2018
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness and outcome of several competitions in which he participated.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4023


    126th Session, 2018
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition procedure in which he participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    appointment; competition; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;

    Considerations 5-8

    Extract:

    Preliminarily to examining the other grounds relied on by the complainant, however, the Tribunal will consider his request for the disclosure of the competition documents without any redactions. According to the case law, a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases or intends to base its decision against him, and, under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality. It follows that a decision cannot be based on a material document that has been withheld from the concerned staff member. The Tribunal has consistently affirmed the confidentiality of the records of the discussions regarding the merits of the applicants for a post. However, this does not extend to the reports regarding the results of the selection process with appropriate redactions to ensure the confidentiality of third parties (see Judgment 3272, considerations 14 and 15, and the case law cited therein, as well as Judgment 3077, consideration 4). [...]
    The IAEA did not disclose to the complainant the evaluator’s notes from the testing process and the related candidates’ identification keys. It considered that, on the basis of Judgment 3272, the discussions of the members of the selection panel concerning the relative merits of the candidates should remain confidential. The Tribunal agrees with this last contention and further determines that the other documents were not inappropriately redacted. Therefore, it will not order the disclosure of the transcripts of the interviews in these proceedings. The request for disclosure is dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3077, 3272

    Keywords:

    confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; selection board; selection procedure;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has stated the basic principles which guide it, where a decision such as this is challenged, [...] in Judgment 3652, consideration 7. [...]
    A complainant is required to demonstrate that there was a serious defect in the selection process which impacted on the consideration and assessment of her or his candidature. It is not enough simply to assert that one is better qualified than the selected candidate (see Judgment 3669, consideration 4).
    However, when an organization conducts a competition to fill a post, the process must accord with the relevant rules and the case law (see Judgment 1549, considerations 11 and 13, and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1549, 3652, 3669

    Keywords:

    appointment; competition; discretion; judicial review; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4001


    126th Session, 2018
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to confirm the appointment of Ms S. to the post of Head of the Caribbean Section.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    appointment; case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; selection procedure;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The following basic principles as stated, for example, in Judgment 3652, consideration 7, guide the Tribunal where a decision such as this is challenged:
    “The Tribunal’s case law has it that a staff appointment by an international organisation is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head. Such a decision is subject to only limited review and may be set aside only if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see Judgment 3537, under 10). Nevertheless, anyone who applies for a post to be filled by some process of selection is entitled to have her or his application considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition. That is a right which every applicant must enjoy, whatever her or his hope of success may be (see, inter alia, Judgment 2163, under 1, and the case law cited therein, and Judgment 3209, under 11). It was also stated that an organisation must abide by the rules on selection and, when the process proves to be flawed, the Tribunal can quash any resulting appointment, albeit on the understanding that the organisation must ensure that the successful candidate is shielded from any injury which may result from the cancellation of her or his appointment, which she or he accepted in good faith (see, for example, Judgment 3130, under 10 and 11).”
    A complainant is required to demonstrate that there was a serious defect in the selection process. The following was accordingly relevantly stated in Judgment 1827, consideration 6:
    “The selection of candidates for promotion is necessarily based on merit and requires a high degree of judgment on the part of those involved in the selection process. Those who would have the Tribunal interfere must demonstrate a serious defect in it; it is not enough simply to assert that one is better qualified than the selected candidate.”
    However, when an organization conducts a competition to fill a post the process must comply with the relevant rules and the case law. The following was accordingly relevantly stated in Judgment 1549, considerations 11 and 13:
    “When an organisation wants to fill a post by competition it must comply with the material rules and the general precepts of the case law. [...] The purpose of competition is to let everyone who wants a post compete for it equally. So precedent demands scrupulous compliance with the rules announced beforehand: patere legem quam ipse fecisti. See Judgments 107[...], 729 [...], 1071 [...], 1077 [...], 1158 [...], 1223 [...] and 1359 [...].”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1549, 1827, 3652

    Keywords:

    bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice; selection procedure;

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s case law, an international organisation must observe the essential rule in every selection procedure, which is that the person appointed must possess the minimum qualifications specified in the vacancy notice (see Judgment 3372, under 19). The case law further states that an international organisation which decides to hold a competition in order to fill a post cannot select a candidate who does not satisfy one of the required qualifications specified in the vacancy notice. Such conduct, which is tantamount to modifying the criteria for appointment to the post during the selection process, incurs the Tribunal’s censure on two counts. Firstly, it violates the principle which forbids the Administration to ignore the rules it has itself defined (tu patere legem quam ipse fecisti). In this respect, a modification of the applicable criteria during the selection procedure more generally undermines the requirements of mutual trust and fairness which international organisations have a duty to observe in their relations with their staff. Secondly, the appointment body’s alteration, after the procedure has begun, of the qualifications which were initially required in order to obtain the post, introduces a serious flaw into the selection process with respect to the principle of equal opportunity among candidates. Irrespective of the reasons for such action, it inevitably erodes the safeguards of objectivity and transparency which must be provided in order to comply with this essential principle, a breach of which vitiates any appointment based on a competition (see Judgment 3641, under 4(a)).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3372, 3641

    Keywords:

    patere legem; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 3868


    124th Session, 2017
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to shortlist him for a position for which he had applied.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; selection procedure;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The Tribunal considers it convenient to outline the relevant applicable legal framework at this juncture. The basic principle is that a decision concerning the selection of a successful applicant in a competition is a discretionary one and is subject to only limited review. It may be set aside only if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence. Nevertheless, anyone who applies for a post to be filled by a selection process must have her or his application considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition. An organisation must abide by its own rules on selection and, when the process proves to be flawed, the Tribunal can quash any resulting appointment, albeit on the understanding that the organisation must ensure that the successful candidate is shielded from any injury which may result from the cancellation of an appointment accepted in good faith (see Judgment 3652, under 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3652

    Keywords:

    selection procedure;



  • Judgment 3758


    123rd Session, 2017
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his non-selection for a post.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 3753


    123rd Session, 2017
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former WHO staff member, contests the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment pursuant to the abolition of his post.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    It is not for the Tribunal to resolve precisely why the position description was said to require fluency in Portuguese. However it cannot be entirely discounted that this was done to facilitate the appointment of the Portuguese speaking individual who ultimately filled the position. But, importantly, what occurred does support the complainant’s case that there had been a manipulation of the position description and the selection process.

    Keywords:

    selection procedure;



  • Judgment 3747


    123rd Session, 2017
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for a post.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; selection procedure;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The Director General stated that he disagreed with the Appeal Board’s finding that the second vacancy announcement [… should be considered invalid since the Administration had failed to withdraw vacancy announcement […] beforehand. The Director General did not provide adequate reasons for his disagreement with the Appeal Board in this respect, as he limited himself to explaining that “[he] consider[ed] [the Appeal Board’s view] to be particularly formalistic given that no injury was caused [to the complainant] as a result”. First, his reference to the formalistic nature of the Appeal Board’s view is unconvincing, as the law is, by its very nature, formalistic. Second, his statement that the failure to cancel vacancy announcement […] did not cause any injury to the complainant is questionable as the Director General did not expressly consider the complainant’s allegations that his chances to succeed had been reduced.

    Keywords:

    motivation; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 3742


    123rd Session, 2017
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the direct appointment of Ms S. to the position of Director, Office of Support to Decentralization.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; selection procedure;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    A challenge to a direct appointment is essentially a challenge to a selection process, which the Tribunal approaches with some restraint. Such a decision is subject to only limited review. It is well established that staff appointments and promotions by an international organisation
    are decisions which lie within the discretion of its executive head. However, the discretion must be exercised within the bounds of legality. The Tribunal explained this in Judgment 3537, under 10 [...].

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3537

    Keywords:

    discretion; selection procedure;

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    The impugned decision will be set aside on the understanding that the [Organization] shall shield the selected candidate […] from any injury that may flow from the setting aside of the impugned decision and the resultant quashing of an appointment which she had accepted in good faith (see Judgments 1477, under 11, and 2336, under 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1477, 2336

    Keywords:

    selection procedure;



  • Judgment 3669


    122nd Session, 2016
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for a post of Director.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    The only decision impugned in the internal appeal was that appointment [...]. Thus the complainant’s complaint to this Tribunal concerns that decision. That is not to say evidence of events in his career cannot, in an evidentiary sense, be relied on in support of allegations of bias or prejudice in relation to the consideration of his candidacy for the position [...]. If the evidence is of substance, it can be relied upon.

    Keywords:

    evidence; selection procedure;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; selection procedure;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    It is convenient, at the outset, to describe the general legal framework in which the complaint is to be considered. Firstly and fundamentally, the Tribunal accepts that the appointment by an international organisation of a candidate to a position is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head. It is subject only to limited review and may be set aside only if it was taken without authority or in breach of rule of form or procedure, or if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence. This formulation is found in many judgments of the Tribunal including, for example, Judgment 3209, consideration 11, and is intended to highlight the need for a complainant to establish some fundamental defect in the selection process. Those defects can include the appointment of a candidate who did not meet one of the conditions stipulated in the vacancy announcement (see, for example, Judgment 2712, consideration 8). However, as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 1827, consideration 6: “The selection of candidates for promotion is necessarily based on merit and requires a high degree of judgment on the part of those involved in the selection process. Those who would have the Tribunal interfere must demonstrate a serious defect in it; it is not enough simply to assert that one is better qualified than the selected candidate.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1827, 2712, 3209

    Keywords:

    appointment; competition; discretion; judicial review; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 3653


    122nd Session, 2016
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to appoint him to a post, not to renew his contract, not to compensate him for “extra-contractual” work and not to compensate him on account of defamation by his former supervisor and for exposure to asbestos.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 3652


    122nd Session, 2016
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns two appointment decisions by the Director-General.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The Director-General’s discretion to appoint staff members must be exercised in accordance with the [internal legal] provisions and the general principles of law governing the international civil service, as discretion must be exercised within the bounds of legality.

    Keywords:

    discretion; selection procedure;

    Consideration 25

    Extract:

    The stated principle is that the nationality of a country that was non-represented or under-represented in the geographic distribution of staff members is only to be taken into account when candidates are equally well qualified. It was in error that qualifications, nationality and geographic distribution were accorded equal weight at that early stage of the process [...].

    Keywords:

    geographical distribution; selection procedure;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s case law has it that a staff appointment by an international organisation is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head. Such a decision is subject to only limited review and may be set aside only if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see Judgment 3537, under 10). Nevertheless, anyone who applies for a post to be filled by some process of selection is entitled to have her or his application considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition. That is a right which every applicant must enjoy, whatever her or his hope of success may be (see, inter alia, Judgment 2163, under 1, and the case law cited therein, and Judgment 3209, under 11). It was also stated that an organisation must abide by the rules on selection and, when the process proves to be flawed, the Tribunal can quash any resulting appointment, albeit on the understanding that the organisation must ensure that the successful candidate is shielded from any injury which may result from the cancellation of her or his appointment, which she or he accepted in good faith (see, for example, Judgment 3130, under 10 and 11).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2163, 3130, 3209, 3537

    Keywords:

    appointment; competition; organisation's duties; selection procedure;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; joinder; selection procedure;

    Considerations 15-16

    Extract:

    A matter which is more critical [...] is a concern for the integrity of the interview process, which the Appeals Committee raised in its report to the Director-General. The Committee expressed concern regarding the lack of transparency in the process, “including the fact that there [were] no available records of the scores from the interviews, which made it impossible for the Committee to verify whether the appellant’s assumption, that there was one point of difference between her and the original first ranked candidate, was accurate, and, if so, to consider whether there was ‘a significant and relevant difference between’ the external and internal candidates which could have led the PSSC, had it had a chance to review the original submission, to recommend a change in their respective rankings”.
    This, in the Tribunal’s view, reflects a serious flaw in the early stages of the selection process. The scores from the interview stage of the selection process were critically important to assist in the determination whether the paramount consideration for selection secured the highest standards of efficiency, technical competence and integrity. They were also necessary to assist in the determination whether the candidates were equally well qualified, so that as an internal candidate, the complainant should have benefitted from that or the gender preference. With the reports from the subsequent stages of the selection process, those scores could have assisted to explain why the complainant was placed second in the two preliminary submissions and why that changed to third in the final submission that was transmitted to the PSSC on 16 November 2010. They could also have assisted to explain to the PSSC that paramount consideration was accorded to the qualifications required in the vacancy announcement; whether the candidates were equally well qualified or otherwise, and, ultimately, whether the complainant should have had the benefit of any preference. They could also have assisted to confirm these same matters for the Appeals Committee in the internal appeal, and for the Tribunal on this complaint.

    Keywords:

    selection procedure;

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >


 
Last updated: 28.10.2021 ^ top