Crudden v. Superintendent of Schools of Boston

• Decision Date: 04 June 1946
• Citation: 67 N.E.2d 474,319 Mass. 686
• Parties: PAUL B. CRUDDEN v. SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF BOSTON.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

319 Mass. 686

67 N.E.2d 474

PAUL B. CRUDDEN v. SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF BOSTON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 4, 1946

May 10, 1946.

Present: FIELD, C.

J., LUMMUS, DOLAN RONAN, & WILKINS, JJ.

School and School Committee. Boston. The duty of a superintendent of schools to recommend teachers under G. L.

(Ter. Ed.) c. 71 Section 59, is owed to the school committee and not to an applicant for a position in the school system.

The superintendent of schools of Boston could not be compelled to recommend a person for appointment as a head master in accordance with a rule of the school committee that the appointee should be one of the first three names on a certain "eligible list," where such a list had been compiled but had not been approved by a board having the duty of establishing it or by the superintendent or by the school committee.

PETITION, filed in the Superior Court on September 21, 1945. The case was reported by Baker, J. It appeared that among rules "adopted by the school committee of Boston in force at all material times" were the following: "Section 70.3. The board of superintendents shall establish rated lists for promotion within the service as may be required by the superintendent, and shall determine the eligibility of candidates for rating on these lists." "Section 277.1.

Promotions to the rank of master, day intermediate and day elementary schools shall be made from the first three names heading the eligible list established by the board of superintendents. 2. Promotions of other teachers and members of the supervising staff shall be made in the order of merit as determined by quality, character, and length of service."

R. C. Evarts, for the petitioner.

R. G. Dodge, (T.

M. Banks, Jr., with him,) for the respondent.

RONAN, J. This is a petition for a writ of mandamus brought by a teacher in the public schools of Boston against the respondent, the superintendent of schools of said city, alleging that the petitioner has been rated "number 3" on a list prepared in accordance with the rules of the school committee for the rating of teachers for promotion to the position of head master of Latin, day high and clerical schools, and that the respondent has refused to recommend the acceptance of said list by the school committee or to submit any recommendations for promotion to said positions, and seeking to compel the respondent "to make recommendations to the school committee for promotion to the positions of head masters . . . in accordance with the list." The petition was submitted upon the pleadings and a case stated to a judge of the Superior Court who, without making a decision reported the case to this court.

The question presented by a report in this form is whether the writ ought to issue as matter of law. No exercise of discretion is involved. Lowry v. Commissioner of Agriculture, 302 Mass. 111 . Attorney General v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 306 Mass. 25 .

It is unnecessary to determine whether the petitioner has any standing to maintain the petition because, if we assume that he has a right to do so, we are of opinion that he cannot prevail. Mayor of Lynn v. Commissioner of Civil Service, 269 Mass. 410 . Codman v. Assessors of Westwood, 309 Mass. 433.

The school committee of Boston is entrusted with the supervision and control of the public schools and "shall have the powers and discharge the duties which may hereafter be imposed by law upon the school committees of cities and towns." St. 1875, c. 241, Section 5, as amended by St. 1933, c. 121, Section 2. The petitioner accordingly contends that the respondent is required by G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 71, Section 59, to "recommend to the committee teachers, textbooks, and courses of study." If we assume in favor of the petitioner that this statute is applicable, it is plain that the purpose of the statute is to enable the committee to secure the aid and advice of the superintendent, who may be presumed to possess more than ordinary knowledge and judgment concerning the ability and competency of teachers, before it appoints a teacher. The duty of the respondent to make any recommendation with reference to teachers is owed to the committee and not to any particular person who may be seeking a position in the school system. So far as appears by the record, the committee has not requested the respondent to recommend any teacher for the position of head master. It is true that a vacancy in the position of head master exists, but it does not appear that the committee presently contemplates filling this vacancy. It...