State ex rel. Wynne v. Urban

103 N.E.2d 408, 62 Ohio Law. Abs. 513, 1952 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 394
CourtCourt of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County
DecidedJanuary 8, 1952
DocketNo. A-129765
StatusPublished

This text of 103 N.E.2d 408 (State ex rel. Wynne v. Urban) 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. Wynne v. Urban, 103 N.E.2d 408, 62 Ohio Law. Abs. 513, 1952 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 394 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1952).

Opinion

OPINION

By BADER, J.

This case has been consolidated by proper entry with cases wherein Eugene A. Ritter and Robert Coleman are relators in cases numbered A-129764 and A-129763 of this Court respectively.

' The relators in this action are Lieutenants in the Cincinnati [514]*514Fire Department and all have served in that capacity for more than one year but less than two years. ^

The respondents set October 29, 1951 as the date for a promotional examination for Fire Captains. This matter of promotional examination and eligibility therefor was approved and the announcement sheet was declared as a part of the minutes of the Civil Service Commission at its meeting on September 27, 1951.

The notice of the examination read in part as follows:

“Eligibility: All Fire Lieutenants who have been permanently appointed and employed as such for the two years prior to the date of this examination are eligible to compete. (No employe shall be deemed eligible for a promotional examination whose last service rating was lower than 75%, unless the average of his last two ratings was not lower than 75%. — Civ. Serv. Comm. Rule XI, Sect. 2)”

“Qualifications: Each applicant must have two years of experience as a Fire Lieutenant. He must be thoroughly familiar with fire fighting practices, equipment, apparatus, first aid, rules and regulations, and fire prevention methods. He must be a good supervisor of men. He must know the location of streets, buildings and fire alarm boxes.”

The relators tendered their respective applications to take the examination but were denied the right for the reason that they had not been employed as Lieutenants in the Cincinnati Fire Department for two years prior to October 29, 1951, the date set for the examination.

The relators bring this action requesting a writ of mandamus to compel the Civil Service Commission of the City of Cincinnati to accept the applications for the reasons that the rule is (1) unlawful and contrary to the Civil Service laws and the Constitution of the State of Ohio; (2) not authorized by law and is beyond the rule making power conferred on the Commission; (3) that the condition has not been uniformly enforced; and (4) that the rule is arbitrary and eonstitues a gross abuse of discretion.

Sec. 12283 GC defines “mandamus” and reads as follows: “Mandamus defined. Mandamus is a writ issued, in the name of the state, to an inferior tribunal, a corporation, board, or person, commanding the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station.”

The question then is what action is enjoined in law on the Civil Service Commission which it has failed to perform.

Section 3 of Article V of the Charter of the City of Cincinnati reads as follows: “The council shall have no power to modify the provisions of the laws of the state of Ohio now or here[515]*515after in effect relating to the civil service and civil service commissions. No fee or other assessment, however, shall be charged applicants for examinations for positions under the civil service.” (See Exhibit No. 2.)

The powers and duties of public officers are those which the statutes of the State expressly delegate to them and such powers as may be necessarily implied from those delegated.

Section 10 Article XV of the Constitution of the State of Ohio concerns appointments and promotions in the civil service of the State, and reads as follows: “Civil service. Appointments and promotions in the civil service of the state, the several counties, and cities, shall be made according .to merit and fitness, to be ascertained, as far as practicable, by competitive examinations. Laws shall be passed providing for the enforcement of this provision.”

After providing the authority for the creation of Municipal Civil Service Commission, §486-19 GC provides in part as follows: “Such municipal commission shall prescribe, amend and enforce rules not inconsistent with the provisions of this act for the classification of positions in the civil service of such city, city school district, and all the positions in the city health district; for examinations and registrations therefor; and for appointments, promotions, removals, transfers, layoffs, suspensions, reductions and reinstatements therein; and for standardizing positions and maintaining efficiency therein. Said municipal commission shall have and exercise all other powers and perform all other duties with respect to the civil service of such city, city school district and city health district, as herein prescribed and conferred upon the state civil service commission with respect to the civil service of the state; and all authority granted to the state commission with respect to the service under its jurisdiction shall, except , as otherwise provided in this act, be held to grant the same authority to the municipal commission with respect to the service under its jurisdiction.”

It necessarily follows that those sections of the General Code which govern the State Civil Service Commission govern the Municipal Civil Service Commission.

Sec. 486-7 GC sets forth, among the other powers and duties of the Civil Service Commission, which applies to all Civil Service Commissions whether they be State or Municipal, the following:

“Powers and duties. The commission shall,

“Rules and regulations. First: Prescribe, amend and enforce administrative rules for the purpose of carrying out and making effectual the provisions of this act.”

[516]*516No other interpretation can be given to the above statute than that one which gives the City of Cincinnati Civil Service Commission the right to prescribe administrative rules for the purpose of carrying out and making effective the provision of the Civil Service Act of the State of Ohio.

In the ease of Green v. State Civil Service Commission, 90 Oh St page 252, 107 N. E. 531, the Court held: “2. The provisions of the civil service law (103 O. L., 698), authorizing the civil service commission to prescribe, amend, and enforce rules with reference to the civil 'service of the state and the several counties and cities, do not constitute a delegation of power to enact laws, * *

On page 256 of 90 Oh St., on page 532 of 107 N. E. the Court said: “In the nature of things there must be many things in which the wisdom of legislation must depend, which can only properly be determined in the course of the administration of the legislative will as expressed in law. The statute in question provides for appointments and promotions in the civil service according to merit and fitness. It also provides for competitive examinations of applicants and chat the commission may adopt rules to carry the provisions of the law into effect. There is in this no delegation of legislative power, but it is the imposition of an administrative duty in order to give practical effect to the enactment. The legislative power to prescribe this duty was exercised by the General Assembly itself in keeping with constitutional requirement.”

In accordance with 'this authority the Civil Service Commission of Cincinnati has established rules by which promotional examinations will be governed, which reads in part as follows: “Rule XI — Section 2.

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

Related

Neil House Hotel Co. v. City of Columbus
58 N.E.2d 665 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1944)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
103 N.E.2d 408, 62 Ohio Law. Abs. 513, 1952 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-wynne-v-urban-ohctcomplhamilt-1952.