Moriarity v. Bd. Of Educ. Of City Of Garfield In Bergen County.
| Decision Date | 22 May 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 228.,228. |
| Citation | 42 A.2d 465,133 N.J.L. 73 |
| Parties | MORIARITY v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF GARFIELD IN BERGEN COUNTY. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Certiorari proceeding by Joseph F. Moriarity against the Board of Education of the City of Garfield, in the County of Bergen, to review a regulation of the Board of Education of the City of Garfield declaring vacant the office of Supervising Principal.
Writ dismissed.
January term, 1945, before BROGAN, C. J., and DONGES and PERSKIE, JJ.
Saul R. Alexander, of Paterson, for prosecutor.
Edward Lukacsko, of Garfield, and Winne & Banta, of Hackensack (Walter G. Winne, of Hackensack, of counsel), for respondent.
Certiorari was allowed to review a resolution of the Board of Education of the City of Garfield declaring vacant the ‘office of Supervising Principal * * * as of September 30, 1944.’ The prosecutor had theretofore been employed by contract with the Board of Education as Superintendent of Schools of the City of Garfield for a five year term which began October 1, 1939. At the time of the making of the contract the school affairs of the municipality were regulated by and conducted in accordance with the provisions of R.S. 18:6-1 et seq., N.J.S.A. On Dec. 2, 1943, the people of Garfield, by referendum, elected to have their school system conducted under the provisions of R.S. 18:7-1, N.J.S.A.
Under the statute first mentioned, supra, provision is made for the appointment of a Superintendent of Schools for a term not to exceed five years or, in the alternative, ‘without term to continue at the pleasure of the board’ of education. N.J.S.A. 18:6-37. In the statute adopted by the citizens of Garfield at the election held for that purpose, provision is found (R.S. 18:7-70, N.J.S.A.) for the appointment of ‘a supervising principal of schools' if the necessity for such principal shall have been ‘agreed to in writing by the county superintendent of schools and approved by the commissioner (of education) and the state board.’
On December 3, 1943, the day following the adoption of R.S. 18:7-1 et seq., N.J.S.A., a new board of education was organized in accordance with the provisions of that statute. It functioned until Feb. 14, 1944, at which time another board of education was officially organized. On July 11, 1944, the district clerk of the Board of Education, pursuant to the Board's direction, made application to the county superintendent of schools for ‘approval of the office of supervising principal’; on Sept. 21, 1944, advice was received from the State Board that at its meeting of Sept. 8, 1944, it had ‘approved the position of supervising principal’ for the school district.
The prosecutor is an honorably discharged veteran of World War No. 1, holds a permanent supervisor's certificate and a permanent school administrator's certificate which qualify him for appointment as supervising principal of schools under the rules of the Board of Education. During his five years of service no complaint of any kind was lodged against him. The resolution ending his service was passed on the day on which his contract, by its term, expired. The prosecutor, contending against the validity of the resolution which declared his employment at an end, claims that in the facts and circumstances surrounding his service, subsequent to the referendum, he acquired tenure in the post of ‘supervising principal.’
It is pointed out that in the proofs before us it appears that on January 10, 1944, the local Board of Education passed a resolution announcing a policy of giving ‘first preference for any vacancy in the Garfield school system’ to honorably discharged veterans of World War No. 1 or 2, so long as such veterans were qualified for any vacancy. That announced policy was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kovalycsik v. City of Garfield, A--431
...Serritella v. Water Commission, etc., of Garfield, supra (128 N.J.L., at page 263, 25 A.2d 263); Moriarity v. Board of Education of Garfield, 133 N.J.L., 73, 76, 42 A.2d 465 (Sup.Ct.1945), affirmed o.b. 134 N.J.L. 356, 46 A.2d 734 (E. & A. 1946); Salter v. Burk, 83 N.J.L. 152, 158, 83 A. 97......
-
Handlon v. Town of Belleville
...125 N.J.L. 178, 14 A.2d 789 (Sup.Ct.1940), affirmed Id. 125 N.J.L. 507, 17 A.2d 152 (E. & A. 1941); Moriarity v. Board of Education of Garfield, 133 N.J.L. 73, 42 A.2d 465 (Sup.Ct.1945), affirmed 134 N.J.L. 356, 46 A.2d 734 (E. & A. 1946); City of Orange v. Goldberg, It is the general rule ......
-
Zimmerman v. Board of Ed. of City of Newark
...permanent employment, a teacher must comply with the precise conditions articulated in the statute. Moriarity v. Board of Education of Garfield, 133 N.J.L. 73, 42 A.2d 465 (Sup.Ct.1945), affirmed 134 N.J.L. 356, 46 A.2d 734 (E. & A. 1946); Ahrensfield v. State Board of Education, supra; 78 ......
-
Breitwieser v. State-Operated School Dist. of City of Jersey City, Hudson County, STATE-OPERATED
...Ed., 38 N.J. 65, 72, 183 A.2d 25 (1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 956, 83 S.Ct. 508, 9 L.Ed.2d 502 (1963); Moriarity v. Garfield Board of Ed., 133 N.J.L. 73, 42 A.2d 465 (Sup.Ct.1945), aff'd, 134 N.J.L. 356, 46 A.2d 734 (E. & A. 1946); Ahrensfield v. State Bd. of Ed., 126 N.J.L. 543, 19 A.2d ......