UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
The staff member who was on a roster of suitable candidates for the Senior Service Desk Officer (SSDO) post was informed that the SSDO post was reclassified to the IT Service Delivery Officer (ISDO) post and the job description had changed to the degree that his membership in the SSDO roster was not applicable to the ISDO post. He expressed interest in applying for the ISDO post but did not apply.
The UNAT noted that the staff member was not the incumbent of the SSDO post at the time of reclassification. The UNAT held that the reclassification of the SSDO post to the ISDO post had not affected the post he encumbered.
The UNAT noted that the staff member had been in a roster for the SSDO post. The UNAT held that his roster membership had not created a right to be appointed directly to the SSDO post.
The UNAT agreed with the Commissioner-General that the staff member’s reliance on the AlMousa Judgment was misplaced, as it concerned a candidate who had already been selected for appointment.
The UNAT agreed with the UNWRA DT’s finding that the decision to reclassify the SSDO post had not produced direct legal consequences or adversely affected the staff member’s terms of employment. The UNAT concluded that the UNWRA DT had not erred in deciding that the application was not receivable.
The UNAT noted that since the application was not receivable, all the staff member’s submissions and additional evidence concerning the merits of the case could not be considered.
The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
An UNRWA staff member contested issues related to the reclassification of the Senior Service Desk Officer (SSDO) post to the IT Service Delivery Officer (ISDO) post.
In Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2025/051, the UNRWA DT dismissed the application as not receivable. The UNRWA DT held that as the staff member had not been the incumbent of the SSDO post at the time of its reclassification to the ISDO post, the reclassification decision had not produced direct legal consequences or adversely affected his terms of employment. The UNRWA DT moreover found that his membership in a pre-approved roster for the SSDO post had not created any right or legitimate expectation of appointment.
The staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
The key characteristic of an administrative decision subject to judicial review is that the decision must produce direct legal consequences affecting a staff member’s terms and conditions of appointment; the administrative decision must have a direct impact on the terms of appointment or contract of employment of the individual staff member.
The rostered candidate cannot be directly appointed to the relevant post without the required checks and procedures.