Lingrell v. N.J. Civil Serv. Comm'n
| Decision Date | 12 May 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 223.,223. |
| Citation | 37 A.2d 278,131 N.J.L. 461 |
| Parties | LINGRELL v. NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Proceeding by William O. Lingrell against the New Jersey Civil Service Commission and the State Highway Commissioner for a writ of certiorari to determine whether the Highway Commission may summarily remove an employee thereof during the working test period without preferring charges and having a hearing before the Civil Service Commission.
Writ dismissed.
Syllabus by the Court
.
The State Highway Commission may, in a summary manner, remove during the working test period an employee unwilling to perform his duties in a satisfactory manner. R.S. 11:12-1, 2, N.J.S.A. Frank I. Casey, of Trenton, for prosecutor.
Walter D. Van Riper, of Newark, and Benjamin C. Van Tine, of Trenton, for defendants.
May term, 1944, before CASE, BODINE, and PORTER, JJ.,
The sole question in this case is whether the State Highway Commission may in a summary manner remove, during the working test period, an employee unwilling to perform his duties in a satisfactory manner without preferring charges and having a hearing before the Civil Service Commission. The answer is in the affirmative.
The pertinent portion of R.S. 11:12-1, N.J.S.A., is as follows: ‘The appointing authority shall, within * * * the working test period * * * report to the chief examiner and secretary’ (of the Civil Service Commission) ‘whether, in his opinion, the test provided by observance of the employee's work shows the employee able and willing to perform his duties in a satisfactory manner * * *.’
This indicates that the sole test is an opinion formed by observation of the employee's work. It goes without saying that such opinion must be, as in this case, formed in good faith. R.S. 11:12-2, N.J.S.A., provides for the removal of such unsatisfactory employee. The report of the action taken is then made to the chief examiner and secretary of the Civil Service Commission. That officer if, in his judgment, the removed employee should be further considered may, with the approval of the Commission, restore his name for further re-employment in another department when a vacancy in the class occurs.
The trial, so far as it relates to the test period, was designed to afford an opportunity to observe the actual work of the employee. If not satisfactory, the employee is subject to summary removal. Any other construction would give tenure rights to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burlington County Evergreen Park Mental Hospital v. Cooper
...167, 51 A.2d 34 (E. & A. 1947); Divine v. Plainfield, 31 N.J.Super. 300, 106 A.2d 355 (App.Div.1954); Lingrell v. N.J. Civil Service Commission, 131 N.J.L. 461, 37 A.2d 278 (Sup.Ct.1944). Unquestionably, under the Constitution, Art. VII, § 1, par. 2 and the Civil Service Law the Commission ......
-
Devine v. City of Plainfield
...patrolman? In view of controlling precedent we feel compelled to answer in the affirmative. Lingrell v. N.J. Civil Service Commission, 131 N.J.L. 461, 37 A.2d 278 (Sup.Ct.1944). Advocates of civil service point out that its purpose is to fill government positions upon a basis of merit and f......
-
Dodd v. Riper.
...formed by the appointing authority during the probationary period. As expressed by the Supreme Court in Lingrell v. New Jersey Civil Service Commission, 131 N.J.L 461, 37 A.2d 278, 279, ‘* * * the sole test is an opinion formed by observation of the employee's work. It goes without saying t......
-
Dodd v. Riper, 205.
...supports the action taken under R.S. 11:12-1, 2, N.J.S.A. everything that should have been done was done. Lingrell v. New Jersey Civil Service Commission, 131 N.J.L. 461, 37 A.2d 278. The argument is made that the work test period under the State service is four months, whereas the probatio......