successful candidates in the Fifth Competitive Examination to the Professional category, in all occupational groups. Four posts were available in the Finance occupational group. The Applicant asserts he was informed that before the results of the examination were known, a target of six and not four finance posts had been established. In reply to a question put by the Tribunal, the ex-officio member of the Specialized Board denied the Applicant's assertion. On 17 October 1984, the Chief, Training and Examinations Service (TES), informed the Applicant of the four posts available in the Finance occupational group, and asked him to advise her in writing, on a special form, of his preferred choice of post. She noted that these posts had not been "available at the time of the oral examination"; that all 13 candidates convoked for the oral examination were being notified and that he would receive a separate communication concerning his "final ranking in the examination". She assured the Applicant that the anonymity of all candidates had been preserved until the list of posts was finalized, in order to "ensure that the determination of the list was in no way influenced by the knowledge of which candidates were in particular positions in the ranking". In a reply dated 22 October 1984, the Applicant asserted that the ranking of candidates had "been generally known- 5 - while the official list [of posts] was still being determined". He enumerated a list of the top six successful candidates, in the order of their ranking. His name appeared as sixth on the list. The Applicant did not state his choice of post on the ground that it was "superfluous at this time ... since the ranking is generally known by most of the staff." He requested that two more posts be made available as "initially projected before ranking results became known."
**Analysis**
The text appears to be related to the process of hiring or selecting candidates for a professional category, involving a competitive examination and the allocation of posts within a specific occupational group. The language used is formal and official, suggesting a bureaucratic or administrative context. The mention of a "Specialized Board" and a "Chief, Training and Examinations Service" further supports this hypothesis.

**Category**
Employment