Shanley v. Jankura

• Decision Date: 17 December 1957
• Citation: 137 A.2d 536,144 Conn. 694
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Raymond A. SHANLEY et al. v. Stephen JANKURA et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 536

137 A.2d 536

144 Conn. 694

Raymond A. SHANLEY et al. v. Stephen JANKURA et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Dec. 17, 1957.

Daniel E. Brennan, Jr., Bridgeport, with whom, on the brief, were James J. A. Daly and Thomas F. Seymour, Bridgeport, for appellants (plaintiffs).

John V. Donnelly, Bridgeport, for appellees (defendants).

Before WYNNE, C. J., and BALDWIN, DALY, KING and MURPHY, JJ.

BALDWIN, Associate Justice.

This action was brought by two lieutenants in the police department of the city of Bridgeport against the civil service commission of the city, the personnel director and the board of police commissioners. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment securing their right to be appointed police captains and to be assigned, respectively, to the duties of police departmental clerk and training and court liaison officer under the Civil Service Act. They also sought permanent injunctions to restrain the defendants from canceling an employment list for the position of police captain upon which their names were posted. The trial court ordered judgment entered for the defendants, and the plaintiffs have appealed.

The finding is not subject to correction in the two particulars claimed by the plaintiffs. The pertinent facts may be stated as follows: The charter of the city of Bridgeport empowers the common council to make, alter and repeal ordinances, among other matters, 'relative to the city police'; Bridgeport Charter, § 56 (1939); 17 Spec. Laws p. 842; to increase or reduce the membership of the police department, and to create new offices therein. Bridgeport Charter, § 234 (1939); 15 Spec.Laws p. 529, § 91. ¹ The council may abolish, among other offices, those of superintendent, captain, lieutenant and sergeants in the police department, on the occurrence of a vacancy. Ibid. If the council votes to reduce the police force, the board of police commissioners, hereinafter referred to as the board, is to 'remove a sufficient number of the members to conform to such vote.' Ibid. The charter also provides that it is the duty of the board to appoint 'fit and suitable persons' to offices in the police department and to remove them for just and sufficient cause. Bridgeport Charter, § 230 (1939); 15 Spec.Laws p. 872, § 4. Pursuant to its powers, the council by ordinance conferred upon the board the general management and control of the police department and the authority to make all needful rules and regulations for its government. Bridgeport Ordinances, § 232 (1939). The council also specified by ordinance that the police department 'shall be composed of a superintendent of police, an assistant superintendent of police, a police matron and not more than seven police captains, eighteen police lieutenants, fifty-three police sergeants, and two hundred thirty-three patrolmen.' Id., § 236. The plaintiffs concede that the latter ordinance was adopted prior to 1920.

In 1935, the General Assembly enacted a civil service law for the city. Bridgeport Charter, c. 16 (1939); 22 Spec.Laws p. 261. This act provides, among other things, for the appointment of a civil service commission, hereinafter referred to as the commission, which is to appoint a personnel director and adopt and amend rules and regulations for the administration of the act. It specifically states that '[n]o provision of the general statutes or special acts inconsistent with any provision of this act shall apply to the city of Bridgeport.' Bridgeport Charter, § 227 (1939); 22 Spec.Laws p. 271, § 25. A classified and an unclassified service were established pursuant to the act. Positions in the classified service were allocated to classes established in a classification plan, and all those holding those positions as of October 3, 1935, were given tenure. All positions and offices in the police department were placed in the classified service.

On June 5, 1953, the personnel director held a competitive test to establish an employment list for the class of police captain. At this time, the classes of positions established by the classification plan for the police department were superintendent, captain, lieutenant, sergeant, patrolman and detective. The personnel director, as the result of the test, posted on August 24, 1953, an employment list of persons eligible for appointment as police captains in the order of their relative merit. Thomas J. Cafferty placed first, the plaintiff Raymond A. Shanley, second, and the plaintiff Francis J. Shanley, third. The list had a duration of two years from August 24, 1953. On October 12, 1954, the commission instructed the personnel director to make a study and submit a report on positions in the classified service, with a view to a new allocation of positions. At a meeting of the commission on July 19, 1955, the personnel director reported, among other matters, that the positions of clerk of the police department and training and court liaison officer should be allocated to the class of police captain. At this meeting, the commission, in response to a request from the board for the certification of an eligible person to the position of relief captain in the police department, certified Cafferty, and he was appointed. This increased the number of police captains from seven to eight, in violation of the ordinance establishing the membership of the department. Bridgeport Ordinances, § 236. Following Cafferty's appointment, the plaintiff Raymond A. Shanley stood first on the employment list for positions in the class of captain, and Francis J. Shanley, second.

In the original allocation of positions in the police department following the adoption of the Civil Service Act in 1935, the position of clerk of the department had been allocated to the class of police captain, the office then being occupied by John A. Lyddy, who held that rank. On September 21, 1943, Lyddy was appointed police superintendent. The position of clerk thereby becoming vacant, the board appointed Sergeant James E. Falvey to it. Falvey then was, and still is, ineligible to hold any position within the class of captain. The commission was not asked by the board for, nor did it give, its approval of the appointment of Falvey. The position of training and court liaison officer was occupied by the plaintiff Francis J. Shanley, and although it was in the classified service, it had not been allocated by the commission to any class of position. The ordinance (§ 236) relating to the membership of the police department had been consistently violated, after the adoption of the Civil Service Act in 1935, by the employment of more officers and patrolmen than was authorized.

At the meeting of the commission on July 19, 1955, the report of the personnel director concerning the allocation of positions was tabled and a subcommittee was appointed to confer with the board. On August 9, 1955, the subcommittee obtained from the city attorney an opinion that the common council had the power by ordinance to set a maximum limit upon the number who could be appointed to the various positions in the police department and that the allocation of positions must accord with that limit. At a meeting on that day, the commission voted to allocate the position of clerk of the department to the class of sergeant and the position of training and court liaison officer to the class of lieutenant The plaintiffs appealed from this action to the commission and also instituted the present suit. On September 13, 1955, the commission canceled, except as to the plaintiff Raymond A. Shanley, the employment list for the position of police captain. On September 6, 1955, pending the decision of this case, the common council had amended § 236 of the ordinances, increasing the number of police captains to eight.

The plaintiff Raymond A. Shanley claims that a mandatory injunction should issue directing the commission to certify, and the board to appoint, him to the clerk's position, now occupied by Sergeant Falvey, in the class of police captain. The plaintiff Francis J. Shanley claims a mandatory injunction directing that he be certified and appointed to the position of training officer, which he now occupies as a police lieutenant, in the class of police captain. The gist of the plaintiff Raymond's argument is this: The commission had allocated the position of clerk in the police department to the class of captain. This position is vacant because the present incumbent is occupying it illegally. It is the only vacancy in the department open for an appointment in the class of captain. Therefore, he is entitled to promotion to the class of captain and appointment to the position automatically. This argument presupposes that the commission can allocate a position in the police department to the class of captain and thereby require the board to fill the position with an appointee of that class even though by so doing the board would exceed by one the number of police captains fixed by ordinance. The claim is that, so far as fixing the number and class of positions in the police department is concerned, the Civil Service Act adopted in 1935 repealed the charter provisions which gave the common council power to adopt ordinances 'relative to the city police' and to increase or reduce the membership of the police force and, with them, the ordinance, adopted pursuant to such power, establishing the number of police captains at seven. Bridgeport Charter, c. 16 (1939); id., §§ 56, 234; 22 Spec.Laws p. 261; 17 Spec.Laws p. 842; 15 Spec.Laws p. 529, § 91; Bridgeport Ordinances, § 236. The resolution of this issue decides the case.

There is nothing in the Civil Service Act which in terms confers upon the commission authority to fix the number...