text: administrative decision and that untimeliness should not be a barrier in the circumstances. The JAB seems to have responded to this request of the Respondent with a measure of reluctance but it did nevertheless consider the case further and commented on its merits. The Applicant raised no objection to the Respondent's request that the JAB again consider the case. The JAB reported to the Respondent on 31 August 1988, recommending that no action should be taken on the appeal. It is against the Respondent's decision accepting this recommendation that the Applicant has come before the Tribunal. III.The Tribunal finds that irrespective of the JAB's views, as expressed in its report of 9 June 1988, the fact remains that the JAB, by its subsequent examination in August 1988, fulfilled the provisions of article 9 of the Tribunal's Statute. Therefore the Tribunal does not accept the view that in this particular case sufficient grounds exist to remand it to the JAB. By following this course, the Tribunal would avoid further delay and expense. IV.Before turning to the merits, it may be helpful to summarize the competitive examination procedure provided for under ST/AI/313, a procedure which stemmed from the decision of the General Assembly that General Service staff members should be accorded the opportunity to compete for 30% of the anticipated vacancies in P-1 and P-2 posts on the basis of ability demonstrated in competitive examinations. Periodically, such examinations are conducted under the overall direction of the CEB, and subsidiary Specialized Boards with respect to individual occupational groups such as Finance. In that field, for example, General Service staff members seeking P-1 or P-2 posts first sit for a written examination which is conducted by the Specialized Board. The latter, having received from the- 11 - Office of Personnel Services (OPS) the number and identification of
analysis: This text appears to be a legal document related to employment and human resources in the United Nations, specifically dealing with a competitive examination procedure for staff members. The language used is formal and technical, suggesting a specialized context. The focus on administrative decisions, appeals, and procedures further supports the idea that this text falls under the employment category.