Board of Education v. Timpson, 32 N.Y.2d 468 (1973)
Civil service appointments must be based on merit and fitness, ascertained through competitive examination where practicable, and temporary service in a higher position without passing the required exam does not qualify an individual for permanent appointment.
Summary
The Board of Education sought to annul the Commissioner of Education’s determination that Adele Timpson should receive a permanent appointment as principal. Timpson had served as an “acting” principal for 11 years but had repeatedly failed the required licensing exam. The Commissioner argued that Timpson’s long service entitled her to the position. The court held that the Commissioner’s determination was arbitrary and violated the constitutional mandate that civil service appointments be based on merit and fitness ascertained by competitive examination. The court emphasized that temporary assignments do not satisfy the requirements for permanent appointments and tenure.
Facts
Due to community opposition and a lack of space, the Board established P.S. 100 in upper Harlem in 1960. The first principal resigned after one year. Mrs. Timpson, a licensed assistant principal, accepted the “acting” principal position in September 1961. She failed the principal’s examination six times. The Board denied her requests for a license, salary, and tenure, despite positive performance reviews. Since 1969, she received the first-step salary for a principal due to her acting capacity.
Procedural History
In 1969, Timpson petitioned the Commissioner, who directed the Board to grant her a permanent appointment. The Board initiated an Article 78 proceeding to annul the Commissioner’s determination. Special Term initially granted the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss, agreeing that Timpson had acquired tenure. The Appellate Division reversed, finding the determination unconstitutional. Special Term then ruled against the Commissioner after an answer was filed, annulling the Commissioner’s decision. The Court of Appeals reviewed the Appellate Division’s non-final order.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commissioner of Education acted arbitrarily by directing the Board of Education to grant a permanent principal appointment to an individual who had not passed the required competitive examination, based solely on her extended service as an “acting” principal.
Holding
No, because the constitutional mandate requires appointments to civil service positions be based on merit and fitness, ascertained by competitive examination where practicable, and temporary service in a higher position without passing the required exam does not qualify an individual for permanent appointment.
Court’s Reasoning
The court emphasized the constitutional requirement (N.Y. Const., art. V, § 6) that civil service appointments be based on merit and fitness, ascertained through competitive examination where “practicable.” The court cited Matter of Goldhirsch v. Krone, 18 N.Y.2d 178, 185, underscoring that individuals cannot be appointed to higher positions without the necessary examination, even with satisfactory performance in a temporary role. The court quoted the Bacon v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 205 Misc. 73, 79, case, stating, “If the beneficent merit system with competitive examinations is to be preserved, we must adhere strictly to the rule that only one who has passed the prescribed appropriate examination is entitled to a certificate of appointment.” The court found the Commissioner acted arbitrarily by bypassing the examination requirement. The court also clarified that serving in an “acting” capacity is not an appointment as envisaged by section 2573 of the Education Law; it is simply a voluntary assignment, and therefore, does not fulfill the probationary period requirement for tenure. The Court distinguished Matter of Mannix, noting that the applicant in that case had passed the prescribed examination, while Timpson had not. The court acknowledged the federal court litigation, Chance v. Board of Examiners & Bd. of Educ. of City of N. Y., 330 F. Supp. 203, which found discrimination in the exam process, potentially offering Timpson future opportunities under revised testing procedures. The court concluded that the remedy for Timpson’s situation does not lie in bypassing constitutional requirements but in creating fairer examination procedures.