discretionary authority of the Secretary-General under th e Charter and the Staff Regulati ons and Staff Rules to determine the type and duration of a staff member's appointment in th e interest of the Organization." On 14 April 1989, the Applican t filed the application referred to earlier. Whereas the Applicant's principal contentions are: 1.The Applicant had an acquired right, derived from service performed at UNIDO, to be initially recruited at the P-3 level. 2.The Applicant's status through out his service in the U.N. has not been one of secondment. The special condition introduced by the Respondent in letters of a ppointment offered after 27 March 1987, is null and void. 3.Each and every one of the Applicant's fixed-ter m appointments constitutes a new appointment. 4.The Applicant was entitled to a probationary appointment- 9 - effective 11 December 1983, under the applicable Staff Regul ations and Rules. Whereas the Respondent's principal contentions are: 1.The entry level of the Applicant's appointment wa s properly determined in accorda nce with the established procedures and guidelines. 2.The granting to the Applicant of a fixed-term as opposed to a probationary appointment did not violate his rights. The Tribunal, having deliberated from 2 to 23 May 1990, no w pronounces the following judgement: I.The Applicant has requested an oral proceeding to examine a number of witnesses and he has also requested the production o f documents. The Tribunal consi ders that the documentation in the case is sufficiently complete and therefore rejects the Applicant' s requests in this regard. II.The Applicant, in his pleas, raises two central issues. Th e first relates to the correction of his entry level when he was first appointed on 11 December 1983 and on each and all of his subsequen t appointments; the second concerns his request to change his firs t