Bristol School Dept. v. Board of Regents for Ed.

• Decision Date: 17 January 1979
• Docket Number: No. 77-27-A,77-27-A
• Citation: 121 R.I. 143,396 A.2d 936
• Parties: The BRISTOL SCHOOL DEPARTMENT v. BOARD OF REGENTS FOR EDUCATION. ppeal.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 936

396 A.2d 936

121 R.I. 143

The BRISTOL SCHOOL DEPARTMENT v. BOARD OF REGENTS FOR EDUCATION.

No. 77-27-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Jan. 17, 1979.

[121 R.I. 146] Anthony R. Berretto, Bristol, for appellant.

Natale L. Urso, Thomas J. Liguori, Jr., Westerly, for Jeannine C. Mills-appellee.

OPINION

JOSLIN, Justice.

In February 1974, Jeannine C. Mills, a tenured schoolteacher in the Bristol School system, was notified by the Bristol School Committee that she would not be reappointed for the 1974-75 school year. ¹ She appealed first to the Commissioner of Education, who ruled against her, and then to the Board of Regents for Education, which reversed the commissioner and ordered the school committee to reinstate her with backpay and benefits. The school committee then appealed to the Superior Court, which (1) dismissed the appeal for want of subject matter jurisdiction, and (2) granted the teacher's counterclaim wherein she asked that a writ of mandamus issue ordering her reinstatement with backpay and benefits. The case is now here on the school committee's appeal from the Superior Court's decision. ²

The appeal, at least insofar as it relates to the original action, falters at the threshold because access to this court for judicial review in cases arising under laws relating to schools or education ³ can only be gained by petitioning for a common-law writ of certiorari and not by filing a claim of appeal. Jacob v. Board of Regents for Education, 117 R.I. 164, 165 n. 1, 365 A.2d 430, 431 n. 1 (1976); Slattery v. School Committee, 116 R.I. 252, 261, 354 A.2d 741, 746 (1976); Latham v. State Department of Education, 116 R.I. 245, 250, 355 A.2d 400, 403 (1976); Schiavulli v. School Committee, 114 R.I. 443, 446, 334 A.2d 416, 417 (1975); Jacob v. Burke, 110 R.I. 661, 670, 296 A.2d 456, 461 (1972). The school committee's failure to comply with this basic and well-established procedure for invoking our jurisdiction in this kind of case is fatal to its appeal, and we dismiss it without reaching the merits. See Portsmouth Education Association v. State Labor Relations Board, 108 R.I. 342, 343-44, 275 A.2d 280, 281 (1971); Madison v. Board of Review of Department of Employment Security, 105 R.I. 69, 69-70, 249 A.2d 100, 101 (1969); Rebello v. Registry of Motor Vehicles, 104 R.I. 518, 519, 247 A.2d 311, 312 (1968).

What remains to be decided is whether dismissal of the school committee's original claim forecloses us from adjudicating its appeal from the Superior Court judgment granting the teacher's counterclaim for mandamus.

This question was neither briefed nor argued by the parties, and our own research has produced little in our case law that is helpful. In the circumstances, we believe that the interests of all concerned will best be served by ordering the parties to brief and argue that open question.

The Bristol School Committee's appeal with respect to the Superior Court's rejection of its original claim is denied and dismissed, and the judgment entered thereon is sustained. We defer decision on whether the Superior Court erred in granting the teacher's counterclaim for mandamus pending briefing and argument on that question by the parties. The school committee's brief shall...