text: any of the candidates, during the examination process." The foregoing and the preceding paragraphs reinforce the Tribunal's conclusion that no basis exists for the Applicant's accusation of conspiracy regarding the number of Finance posts made available by OPS with its 2 October 1984 communication.- 15 - XII.As noted above, the Administration has admitted that it did not fully comply with ST/AI/313 in not providing the list of available Finance posts to the candidates before the 10-12 September 1984 oral examination. The Tribunal deeply regrets non-compliance with important provisions of ST/AI/313, such as the one involved here. As the Tribunal's jurisprudence has repeatedly made clear, the Administration is expected to abide by its own rules, and when it fails to do so, its responsibility is engaged. In this case, however, the circumstances warrant consideration by the Tribunal whether the Administration's explanation for its failure to observe the rules was reasonable and whether the Applicant was thereby injured through alleged withholding by the Administration subsequent to 2 October 1984, of additional Finance posts that might have been made available for promotion of the Applicant. XIII.While the Tribunal finds that the Administration's non-compliance with ST/AI/313 is open to criticism, an explanation was provided by it for its inability to provide the list of available Finance posts to the candidates before the oral examination. The Administration was having difficulty in finding the 26 posts it had promised to the Staff Union for the competitive examination. Under General Assembly Resolution 35/210 calling for approximately 30 percent of promotions to be made available through competitive examinations, the Administration would have been obliged to provide only about 16 posts. However, the Administration, in discussions with the Staff Union, had undertaken to do more than it was obliged to do and was having difficulty in meeting that
analysis: This text appears to be related to a bureaucratic process within an organization, specifically the United Nations, as it references a Staff Union and a communication from OPS. The content deals with the promotion of an employee and the alleged non-compliance with rules and regulations. It does not seem to be related to any specific economic or environmental issue.