Roy v. Mulcahy
| Decision Date | 21 June 1971 |
| Citation | 288 A.2d 64,161 Conn. 324 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Albert J. ROY v. Leo J. MULCAHY, Commissioner of State Police et al. |
Stephen I. Traub, New Haven, for appellant (plaintiff).
C. Michael Budlong, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom, on the brief, were Robert K. Killian, Atty. Gen., and F. Michael Ahern, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees (defendants).
Before HOUSE, THIM, RYAN, SHAPIRO and LOISELLE, * JJ.
The plaintiff, a corporal in the state police department, has brought this action for a declaratory judgment to determine whether the commissioner of state police and the commissioner of personnel were legally justified in permitting Connecticut state police below the rank of corporal to take a promotional examination for state police sergeant which was scheduled to be held between October 19 and November 14, 1970.
On July 1, 1967, the commissioner of state police, pursuant to General Statutes § 29-2, promulgated rules and regulations for his department. Section 1.29 thereof provides: . On April 17, 1970, the state police commissioner sponsored a promotional examination for sergeant to be given by the Connecticut state personnel department. In the notification for the examination, among other requirements specified, was one calling for 'not less than one (1) year's employment as a State Police Officer at the level of State Police Corporal.'
On June 3, 1970, in a state police broadcast, the state police commissioner stated that he had recommended to the state personnel commissioner that the qualifications originally specified in the April 17, 1970, notice be changed to permit not only corporals but also patrolmen to take this particular examination. On September 8, 1970, the state police commissioner released a new notice with respect to the examination, scheduled to be held between October 19 and November 14 for the sergeants' examination by the state personnel department which amended the original notice by extending the qualifications so as to include not only corporals but also patrolmen.
The plaintiff, acting for himself and other corporals, complained to the commissioner of state police and the personnel commissioner of their procedure but the complaint was rejected. Thereupon, this action was brought. On November 4, 1970, the Superior Court found the issues for the defendants. On November 23, 1970, a temporary injunction against the scheduled examination was ordered to remain in effect until June 15, 1971.
On the same day the state police commissioner amended § 1.29 of the rules and regulations to the requirement that no member of the department shall be eligible for promotion to the next rank until he has served at least one year in the preceding rank by adding thereto 'except when special conditions exist as determined by the commissioner which shall be set forth in the announcement of the promotional examination.' It was conceded by all parties that on the same day the state police commissioner ordered a new examination which was not limited to corporals, to be held on December 11, 1970, under the new amended § 1.29.
On November 24, 1970, the plaintiff took an appeal from the Superior Court judgment in favor of the defendants. Due to this appeal no examination for sergeant has been held.
The plaintiff's basic contention is that only corporals should be allowed to take the promotional examination for state police sergeant. His principal claim in this regard is that the ultimate control over promotional examinations rests with the commissioner of state police and not with the commissioner of state personnel and that being so, § 1.29 of the rules and regulations of the state police department existing at the time of the first examination announcement on April 17, 1970, which in effect restricted the examination to corporals, controls who takes the examinations. He further claims that if the ultimate control over promotional examinations rests with the commissioner of personnel, he is nevertheless bound by § 1.29 of the state police regulations in existence at the time of the first examination on April 17, 1970.
In his prayer for relief the plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment determining whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Villafane
...such matters from the requirements of § 4-46, and, consequently, neither publication nor approval was required. See Roy v. Mulcahy, 161 Conn. 324, 328 n. 1, 288 A.2d 64. Even if Villafane's initial detention were to be considered unlawful, it does not follow that the evidence of the identif......
-
State v. Johnson
...v. Vroom, 130 Conn. 512, 515, 36 A.2d 22 [1944]; Harkins v. Driscoll, 165 Conn. 407, 409, 334 A.2d 901 [1973]; Roy v. Mulcahy, 161 Conn. 324, 328, 288 A.2d 64 [1971]; see Tracy v. Johnson, 156 Conn. 630, 239 A.2d 477 [1968]. This statement of law leads to the question of what, if any, pract......
-
Connecticut Emp. Union Independent, Inc. v. Connecticut State Emp. Ass'n, Inc.
...Vehicles, 166 Conn. 449, 452, 352 A.2d 291 (1974); Harkins v. Driscoll, 165 Conn. 407, 409, 334 A.2d 901 (1973); Roy v. Mulcahy, 161 Conn. 324, 328, 288 A.2d 64 (1971); Maltbie, Conn. App.Proc. § 21. In the absence of an actual and existing controversy for us to adjudicate in any sense of t......
-
Waterbury Hospital v. Connecticut Health Care Associates
...Vehicles, 166 Conn. 449, 452, 352 A.2d 291 (1974); Harkins v. Driscoll, 165 Conn. 407, 409, 334 A.2d 901 (1973); Roy v. Mulcahy, 161 Conn. 324, 328, 288 A.2d 64 (1971); Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. § 21. In the absence of an actual and existing controversy for us to adjudicate in any sense of th......