text: On 30 October 1984, the Chief, TES, asked the Applicant to explain how he had advance knowledge of the examination results and on 12 November 1984, she informed him that the question concerning the confidentiality of the entire exercise would be pursued with the CEB and all concerned. On 15 November 1984, the Chief, TES, informed the Applicant of the results of the examination and his ranking as number 6 out of 98 candidates. On 3 December 1984, the Applicant wrote to the Assistant Secretary-General, OPS, and, referring to his "fruitless" exchange of correspondence with the Chief, TES, asked him to allocate two additional posts to the Finance occupational group in order to promote all six successful candidates. In a reply dated 18 December 1984, the Assistant Secretary-General, OPS, rejected the Applicant's request and explained that "at no stage of the 1984 examination were there six posts earmarked, identified or available in the Finance occupational group." On 25 June 1985, the Applicant asked the Secretary-General to review his case since he felt that he had "been victimized through procedural lapses and events beyond [his] control." In addition, the Applicant filed an appeal with the Panel on Discrimination and Other Grievances (Panel on Discrimination). On 13 May 1986, the Co-ordinator of the Panel on Discrimination submitted the report on the Applicant's case to the- 6 - Successor of OPS.1Assistant Secretary-General, OPS. The Panel recommended that the Applicant, "as one among those first six candidates [who had passed the competitive examination], be given a Professional post, even if such a post did not appear to be available as of late 1984." On 28 May 1986, the Assistant Secretary-General, OPS, informed the Co-ordinator of the Panel on Discrimination that he was unable to accept the Panel's recommendation in the case. On
analysis: The text appears to be a case study of an employee's grievance within the United Nations system, specifically related to a competitive examination and subsequent employment opportunities. The language used is formal and bureaucratic, indicating that the context is likely related to administrative or organizational issues.