Resnick v. Civil Service Commission of City of Bridgeport

• Decision Date: 16 January 1968
• Citation: 238 A.2d 391,156 Conn. 28
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Benjamin J. RESNICK v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF the CITY OF BRIDGEPORT.

Page 391

238 A.2d 391

156 Conn. 28

Benjamin J. RESNICK v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF the CITY OF BRIDGEPORT.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Jan. 16, 1968.

Sidney Vogel, Norwalk, for appellant (plaintiff).

John J. McGuinness, Bridgeport, with whom, on the brief, were Robert J. Testo and Mark F. Gross, Bridgeport, for appellee (defendant).

Before ALCORN, HOUSE, COTTER, THIM and RYAN, JJ.

COTTER, Associate Justice.

The defendant, the Bridgeport civil service commission, is an agency of the city of Bridgeport charged with the administration of the classified civil service system in Bridgeport. The commission announced a competitive examination for the position of legal aide in the legal department of the Bridgeport city government. The notice of the open competitive examination stated that part of this examination was to be written and that an interview might be required to measure the training, experience and general qualifications of the candidate. The plaintiff took and passed the written examination and was orally interviewed on June 16, 1964, by two examiners for the commission. This interview embraced that portion of the examination suggested by the announcement. In the course of this oral examination, one of the interviewers inquired as to the plaintiff's court and legal experience, and he further asked the plaintiff if he was a Republican and whether he had ever been associated with the West End Synagogue. The plaintiff was subsequently notified that he had received a grade of 65 on the oral examination. He was not certified to an eligible list for the position and, accordingly, was not appointed. The successful applicant appeared in court and participated in the trial and appellate proceedings in the present case.

The charter of the city of Bridgeport, as amended by No. 407 of the 1935 Special Laws (22 Spec.Laws, p. 261), provided for the establishment of a civil service commission. Section 9 of the civil service provisions of the charter is entitled 'Tests of Employment and Promotion' and provides in pertinent part as follows: 'No question in any test shall relate to religious or political opinions or affiliations.' 22 Spec.Laws, p. 265, No. 407 § 9.

The trial court concluded that questions were asked of the plaintiff in the oral examination touching on his political and religious opinions and affiliations, that these questions were asked in a friendly manner designed only to put the candidate at ease, that they were not a part of the test or examination, and that the answers given were not used as criteria for rating the plaintiff.

The object of the legislation with which we are concerned must be considered in solving the issues raised by this appeal. The civil service law provides for the appointment to positions and offices in the governmental service according to merit and fitness to be ascertained by competitive examination. State ex rel. McNamara v. Civil Service Commission of City of Bridgeport, 128 Conn. 585, 588, 24 A.2d 846. This mandate requires that original appointments to municipal offices be made as the result of an examination, the resulats of which show a person to be best qualified, and that competitive examinations be conducted so as to obtain people who manifest their qualifications for the job and thus advance the cause of civil service. McAdams v. Barbieri, 143 Conn. 405, 421, 123 A.2d 182; State ex rel. Chernesky v. Civil Service Commission of City of Bridgeport, 141 Conn. 465, 469, 106 A.2d 713; 15 Am.Jur.2d 465, Civil Service, § 1. One of the commonly accepted purposes and functions of civil service is that appointments be made from lists of properly examined and qualified personnel. Shanley v. Jankura, 144 Conn. 694, 704, 137 A.2d 536. The purpose of these laws is to ensure the appointment of personnel possessed of the qualifications which are necessary for a fit and intelligent discharge of duties pertaining to public office and to free public employees from the fear of political and personal prejudicial reprisal. Gagliardi v. Ambridge Borough, 401 Pa. 141, 145, 163 A.2d 418; United States v. Thayer, 209 U.S. 39, 42, 28 S.Ct. 426, 52 L.Ed. 673. The prohibition contained in the special act under consideration in the present case was intended to eliminate a reversion to political or religious affiliation as a test for the appointment to a position so as to contravene that which had been accomplished in the way of civil service reform. ¹ Howe v. Civil Service Commission of City of Bridgeport, 128 Conn. 35, 38, 20 A.2d 397; Civil Service Commission v. Auditor General, 302 Mich. 673, 5 N.W.2d 536; Rogers v. Common Council of City of Buffalo, 123 N.Y. 173, 25 N.E. 274; People ex rel. Akin v. Kipley, 171 Ill. 44, 49 [156 Conn. 32] N.E. 229, writ of error dismissed, Kipley v. People of State of Illinois ex rel. Akin, 170 U.S. 182, 18 S.Ct. 550, 42...