State ex rel. Bigam v. Hainen

• Decision Date: 24 November 1948
• Docket Number: 31420.
• Citation: 82 N.E.2d 734,150 Ohio St. 371
• Parties: STATE ex rel. BIGAM v. HAINEN et al.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

82 N.E.2d 734

150 Ohio St. 371

STATE ex rel. BIGAM v. HAINEN et al.

No. 31420.

Supreme Court of Ohio

November 24, 1948

Syllabus by the Court.

The term, 'years of service,' contained in Section 486-10, General Code, providing for certain service-seniority credits in civil service promotional examination grades includes the period represented by the total number of years of service rendered by the applicant in the governmental department in which he is employed at the time of the examination and does not limit the period of credit to the years of service in the grade or rank of service in which the applicant is then employed; and a rule of a city civil service commission which does so limit is in conflict with such statute and invalid.

In Mandamus.

This is an action in mandamus originating in this court in which the relator seeks to compel the respondents, Hainen, Stephan and Wales, as members of the civil service commission of the city of Cleveland Heights, and Kimpel, as city manager and director of public safety of the same city, to appoint relator to a captaincy in the fire department of the city, as the result of a promotional examination taken by him.

Relator in his petition alleges that he is a member of the fire department of the city of Cleveland Heights and within the classified civil service of such city; that he was appointed a fireman in such department on March 1, 1929; that he served continuously as such fireman from the date of his appointment until April 16, 1946, at which time, having taken a civil service promotional examination and having become eligible for an appointment as a lieutenant, he was promoted to lieutentant in the fire department; that he has served continuously as such from the latter date; and that the respondent Kimpel, as such city manager, has the power and duty of making appointments to vacancies occurring in the fire department, including that of captain.

The petition alleges further that on February 27, 1948, the civil service commission held a promotional examination for the position of captain in the fire department; that the relator and certain other lieutenants in such department took the examination and he was given a credit of one per cent of the total grade attainable for lieutenant-service seniority and his name was placed fourth on the eligible list, whereas under the provisions of Section 486-10, General Code, he was entitled to a credit of one per cent of the total grade attainable by him for each of the first four years of his service in the fire department and six-tenths per cent of such total grade for each of the next ten years of his service in the department, or a total credit of ten per cent for service seniority, which credit, if given to him, would have placed him first on the eligible list and would have entitled him to appointment as captain.

The prayer of the petition is that the relator be given the proper credit for service seniority; that his name be placed first on the eligible list for appointment as captain; and that he be appointed captain in a vacancy now existing.

The joint answer of the respondents admits that if the relator is entitled to a credit of ten per cent of the total grade attainable for service seniority, such credit would have placed him first on the eligible list and would have entitled him to be appointed captain in the fire department to fill the first vacancy occurring in that position, but alleges that on February 9, 1948, the civil service commission of the city established the following weights and grades for such promotional examination--85 points for written work, 10 points for seniority, and 5 points for efficiency; that the civil service commission determined that the seniority credits should be limited to service in the rank of lieutenant from which the promotion to captain would be made; that under such rule the relator was entitled to one per cent of the total attainable grade for service seniority that he was thereby entitled to be placed no higher than fourth on the eligible list; and that the respondent director of public safety promoted the lieutenant whose name stood first on...