UNAT held that the case was distinguishable from Finniss (judgment No. 2014-UNAT-397) since there was no allegation of bias, discrimination, or any other kind of deteriorated or privileged relationship between the involved candidate and the Deputy CEO. UNAT disagreed with UNDT’s holding that the Deputy CEO should not have acted as a voting member of the assessment panel. UNAT held that in order to exclude the Deputy CEO’s involvement in the selection exercise, there must be reasonable grounds and/or evidence of extraneous or improper motives, of which there was none (except unsubstantiated and...