Malone v. Fender
| Decision Date | 22 May 1979 |
| Citation | 80 N.J. 129,402 A.2d 240 |
| Parties | Robert MALONE, Louis Postel and Bartholomew Bevins, Appellants, v. James L. FENDER, Joseph H. Capasso, Robert J. Oldknow, Joseph A. Stuart,Michael C. Stoia, Thomas H. Mageean, William R. Conn, George J. Flanagan, EmilJ. Nigro, Raymond J. Hermann, Warren B. Wilson, John A. Roberts, William G.Schalk, WilliamDougan, James Malcolm, James Heron, George J. Harris, Theodore J. Durante,Francis X. Lynch, Francis J. Meyers, John L. Palmer, Joseph McMillan and DanielTaylor, Respondents, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SERVICE of the State of NewJersey, Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Erminie L. Conley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant, Civil Service Com'n (John J. Degnan, Atty. Gen., attorney; Henry D. Blinder, Deputy Atty. Gen., on the brief).
Richard H. Greenstein, Newark, for appellants, Robert Malone, et al. (Fox & Fox, Newark, attorneys).
Edward Weisslitz, West Orange, for respondents (Schechner & Targan, West Orange, attorneys).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The issue on this appeal is whether the Civil Service Commission has the power to extend for a third year a local government employment eligibility list originally promulgated for two years. More specifically, the questions presented are whether N.J.S.A. 11:22-32, which provides for the duration of such eligibility lists, contemplates an extension beyond the term of the list as originally fixed and, if so, whether the Commission has validly extended the term here in light of the evidence presented and after the list had already expired.
In August 1974 the Department of Civil Service held a promotional examination for the position of Fire Captain in the Town of Kearny. The Department subsequently issued an employment eligibility list effective October 31, 1974, which ranked the 32 candidates who had successfully completed the examination. The list was to be in effect for two years, expiring on October 30, 1976.
In November 1974 the Town appointed the top four candidates from the list to Fire Captain positions. Thereafter, in August 1976, the Town asked the Civil Service Department to conduct another examination. An exam was held in February 1977, and a new list was promulgated on June 23, 1977, with an expiration date of June 22, 1979.
On October 5, 1976, before the scheduling of the second examination and shortly before the 1974 eligibility list was due to expire, petitioners, Kearny firemen who were ranked fifth through seventh on the 1974 list but had not been promoted to Fire Captain, requested from the Civil Service Commission an extension of the list for an additional year. Their request was repeated in a letter dated October 21, 1976 sent to the Director of Local Government Services of the Civil Service Department. That letter refers to a contemporaneous conversation between petitioners' counsel and the Director to the effect that pending action by the Commission, "the individuals on the list will not be jeopardized as a result of its technical expiration on October 30, 1976." The matter was placed on the Commission's agenda for its next regular meeting on November 10, 1976, at which time the Commission postponed a decision in order to permit all interested parties to comment on petitioners' request. After considering documentary evidence, the Commission voted, on March 15, 1977, to extend the expiration date of the eligibility list for one year, to October 30, 1977. The decision of the Commission was communicated to the parties in a letter dated April 11, 1977, which related that the Commission had considered all material presented and that it had voted to extend the list in accordance with the Commission's rules and regulations. The letter did not further elucidate reasons for the decision. Respondents, Kearny firemen also on the list but at a lower ranking than petitioners (with the exception of one individual not on the list), appealed from the Commission's determination.
The Appellate Division denied a motion to stay the decision of the Commission pending the appeal "without prejudice to its renewal in the event of an appointment from the extended eligibility list which will expire on October 30, 1977". On July 13, 1977 the town council of Kearny conditionally appointed two of the petitioners, Louis Postel and Bartholomew Bevins, to the position of Fire Captain pending the outcome of this litigation. On March 30, 1978 the Appellate Division reversed the decision of the Civil Service Commission, holding the Commission without power to extend the list, and voided the appointments made after October 30, 1976, the original expiration date of the eligibility list. 158 N.J.Super. 190, 385 A.2d 929 (1978). In a supplementary opinion the Appellate Division held its determination to be prospective only. 160 N.J.Super. 221, 389 A.2d 504 (1978). This Court granted certification. 77 N.J. 501, 391 A.2d 515 (1978).
N.J.S.A. 11:22-32 empowers the Civil Service Commission to set the period of eligibility for appointment of applicants certified, as here, for promotion in local government service. The Commission under this statute may set the term of eligibility at not less than one nor more than three years. In this case, the Commission initially set the eligibility period at two years. It thereafter extended this list to the maximum statutory term of three years. The statute is itself silent on the matter of extensions, providing in full:
Appointments shall be made to or employment given in all positions in the competitive class not filled by promotion, reinstatement transfer or reduction under the provisions of this subtitle and the rules made in pursuance thereof, by appointment from among those certified to the appointing authority in accordance with the provisions of section 11:22-16 of this title. The term of eligibility of an applicant shall be fixed for each list by the Commission at not less than one nor more than three years. Appointments shall be made from the eligible list most nearly appropriate, and a new and separate list shall be created for a stated position only when no appropriate list exists from which appointment may be made.
The Commission's regulations, however, promulgated pursuant to the Civil Service Act specify:
An employment list may be extended for good cause by the Commission for such period or periods beyond its expiration date, provided that no list shall remain in effect for more than the maximum period allowed by the law. N.J.A.C. 4:1-11.6.
Substantially similar regulations providing for the extension of eligibility lists have been in effect since the original enactment of the Civil Service Law.
The Appellate Division, in holding that the Civil Service Commission lacked the authority to extend an eligibility list for local government employment, placed primary stress on the difference in the language found in N.J.S.A. 11:22-32, dealing with local service, and N.J.S.A. 11:9-10 which deals with state service. The latter provides specifically for extending eligibility lists, Viz :
The Chief examiner and secretary shall, at the time an employment list is promulgated, provide by regulation, approved by the commission, the period during which this list shall remain in force. No employment list shall be promulgated for a period less than six months nor greater than three years. The chief examiner and secretary may, with the approval of the commission, extend the period during which an employment list remains in force, by action taken before the expiration of the list and entered in the minutes of the commission together with his statement as to the reasons therefor. * * *
The Appellate Division and respondents have seized upon the absence of such explicit authority in the local service statute, N.J.S.A. 11:22-32, to impute a legislative purpose to withhold from the Commission the power to extend such lists.
Ordinarily, a comparative analysis of the language of contemporaneous statutes may, because of contrasting language applicable to similar subject matter, be indicative of an intent or purpose on the part of the Legislature to provide different treatment. Smith v. Tp. of Hazlet, 63 N.J. 523, 527, 309 A.2d 210 (1973). That approach, however, does not carry the same interpretive weight when the statutes which are being compared were not in fact contemporaneous enactments. Here, N.J.S.A. 11:22-32 was first enacted as L.1908, C. 156, § 14. N.J.S.A. 11:9-10 was enacted much later as L.1930, C. 176, § 22. We must therefore explore other paths to reach an understanding of the legislative scheme.
One such avenue is the long and consistent administration of the civil service law in this area in the context of the history of the legislation. The first version of New Jersey's Civil Service Act, L.1908, C. 156, covered employment in the classified service of both state and local governments. It contained language identical in every material respect to that now found in N.J.S.A. 11:22-32, that is to say, the early legislation did not contain any explicit reference to authority in the Civil Service Commission to extend eligibility employment lists within the periods prescribed by the law. L.1908, C. 156, § 14. The 1908 Act, however, granted power to the Commission to make rules and regulations in order to effectuate the provisions of the Act, L.1908, C. 156, § 8. The Civil Service Commission exercised this rule making power contemporaneously with the passage of the Act, adopting Rule VI(b)(3) which stated:
A name shall be removed from the eligible list at the expiration of two years, unless in the judgment of the Commission it is advisable that the names of all those whose eligibility would expire at the same time should be continued on the list for a third year.
That rule reflects an interpretation of the statute by the Civil Service Commission as granting authority for the discretionary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Airwork Service Div., a Div. of Pacific Airmotive Corp. v. Director, Div. of Taxation
...Council v. Glaser, 127 N.J.Super. 413, 420, 317 A.2d 734 (App.Div.1974) (interpreting Sales and Use Tax Act); see Malone v. Fender, 80 N.J. 129, 402 A.2d 240 (1979). Nevertheless, the court will consider this factor only when it is not satisfied that the Legislature's intent cannot otherwis......
-
City of Hackensack v. Winner
...Service Commission has broad powers to determine merit and fitness in connection with appointments and promotions. Malone v. Fender, 80 N.J. 129, 402 A.2d 240 (1979); State Troopers Fraternal Ass'n, Inc. v. State, 115 N.J.Super. 503, 280 A.2d 235 (Ch.Div.1971), aff'd Per curiam 119 N.J.Supe......
-
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. State, Dept. of Environmental Protection and Energy
...has been collecting its oversight fees from responsible parties since 1986 without "legislative interference." See Malone v. Fender, 80 N.J. 129, 137, 402 A.2d 240 (1979) ("an agency's construction of a statute over a period of years without legislative interference will under appropriate c......
-
Holmdel Builders Ass'n v. Township of Holmdel
...responsible for its implementation can be most instructive in ascertaining legislative intent and statutory meaning. Malone v. Fender, 80 N.J. 129, 137, 402 A.2d 240 (1979). Here, deference to the Council's application of the FHA "is especially appropriate because the agency is charged with......