State ex rel. Ford v. Gamble

28 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 289, 1930 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1225
CourtCourt of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County
DecidedDecember 15, 1930
StatusPublished

This text of 28 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 289 (State ex rel. Ford v. Gamble) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Ford v. Gamble, 28 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 289, 1930 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1225 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1930).

Opinion

Darby, J.

The relators in the above named actions filed petitions for writs of mandamus against the Civil Service Commissioners, based upon the following allegations:

That the relators are patrolmen of the Cincinnati Police Department, which are classified positions under the civil service rules; that the commissioners have compiled and conducted examinations of employees in the classified service of said police department; that on June 3, 1930, the said commissioners conducted and held a written “promotional examination for members of the police department holding rank of patrolmen, who had been in such service for two and a half years or more, for promotion to the rank of sergeants of police, and tbat said examination was for the purpose of fixing and maintaining a numerical list for the appointment and promotion of patrolmen to said rank of sergeants of police”; that fifty-seven of such patrolmen participated in said promotional examination, and that Ford received the grade of 82.56 per cent, (the other relators receiving lesser percentage as set forth in their respective petitions) ; that the commissioners added to the grades of sixteen of said patrolmen participating in said examination an additional credit of twenty per cent, of the grade averaged and received in said examination by reason of having served in the army [291]*291<or navy of the United States during the late World War; that the commissioners certified to the superintendent of police a list of the patrolmen participating in said examination, showing all of said ex-service men with a higher grade than relators, by virtue of the addition to the grade of said ex-service men of the twenty per cent.; that the relator Ford (others making similar claims) says he is entitled to the first position in rank on the numerical list for promotion, and should have been so certified by the commissioners to the chief of police, but that notwithstanding that, his name was placed seventeenth on said promotional list.

The relators have demanded to be placed in the list in the order of their grades in said promotional examination, which has been denied solely on the ground of said twenty per cent, addition to the grade of the ex-service men. The relators pray for writs of mandamus compelling the commissioners to place their names in the position to which they are entitled, by reason of the grade averaged and received at said examination and that said commissioners certify relators to the chief of police according to their respective grades.

The respondents have not filed any pleading by way of answer or demurrer, but the case was argued to the court on the original application for a writ of mandamus.

Statutes allowing preference in the civil service to soldiers, sailors and others who have served in times of war have been held to be constitutional in many of the states of the United States: the greater number of such statutes allowing such preference in case of equality of qualification. It is not necessary to a determination of this case to pass upon the constitutionality of the statutes involved in this case, namely, Sections 486-10 to 486-15, inclusive, General Code.

The matter involved is the proper interpretation of those sections.

Relators claim that in any event the twenty per cent, added to the grade of ex-service men who receive a passing grade applies only to the case of original appointment; [292]*292while the respondents claim is that the twenty per cent, added grade relates not only to the original appointment but that upon each promotional examination from grade to grade in the police department the ex-service men would be entitled to the twenty per cent, added to their passing grade.

The situation requires a careful, proper and reasonable analysis of the sections in order to determine the legislative intent and purpose.

Section 486-10, so far as applicable provides that

“All applications for positions and places in the classified service shall' be subject to examination which shall be public and open to all within certain limitations to be determined by the commission as to citizenship, residence, age, sex, experience, health, habits and moral character: Provided, however, that any soldier, sailor, marine, member of the army nurse corps or Red Cross Nurse who has served in the army, navy or hospital service of the United States in the war of the Rebellion, the war with Spain or the war with the central powers of Europe between the dates of April 6, 1917, and November 11, 1918, who has been honorably discharged therefrom and is a resident of Ohio, may file with the civil service commission a certificate of service and honorable discharge, whereupon he shall receive additional credit given in any regular examination in which he receives a passing grade of twenty per cent, of his grade. Such examination shall be practical in character and shall relate directly to those matters which will fairly test the worth, and capacity of the person examined to discharge the particular duties of the position for which appointment is sought, and shall when appropriate, include tests of physical qualifications, health and manual skill.
“The said commission shall have control of all examinations except as otherwise provided in this act. No questions in any examination shall relate to political or religious opinions or affiliations. Reasonable notice of the time and place and general scope of every competitive examination for appointment to a position in the civil service except as otherwise provided for in this act shall be given by the commission. * * * In case of examination limited by the commission to a district, county or city, the commission shall provide in its rules for adequate publicity of such examinations in the district, county or city within which competition is permitted.”

[293]*293It seems clear that the foregoing section relates to original positions and the rules by which such examinations are held.

It should be noted that examination is provided for in this clause, and also there is additional provision for a rating given to ex-service men of twenty per cent., which is a subject to be determined only after their grade is fixed upon the examination.

Section 486-12 applies to eligible lists, and is as follows :

“From the returns of the examination the commission shall prepare an eligible list of the persons whose general average standing upon such examination for such grade or class is not less than the minimum fixed by the rules of the commission and who are otherwise eligible; and such persons shall take rank upon the eligible lists as candidates in the order of their relative excellence as determined by the examination without reference to priority of time of examination. In the event of two or more applicants receiving the same mark in an examination, priority in the time of application shall determine the order in which their names shall be placed on the eligible list * * *.

This section fixes the duties of the commissioners in establishing eligible lists, and the rank upon the same is to be determined according to the provisions of the section.

Section 486-13 applies to appointment, and is as follows:

“The head of a department, officer or institution in which a position in the classified service is to be filled shall notify the commission of the fact, and the commission shall,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Matter of Barthelmess v. . Cukor
132 N.E. 140 (New York Court of Appeals, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 289, 1930 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-ford-v-gamble-ohctcomplhamilt-1930.