Opinion by
Are the secretary and treasurer, or either, of a third class school district subject to removal from office at the pleasure and discretion of the board of school directors, the appointing power?
On May 7,1957 Harold R. Philips was elected school district treasurer for a 1 year term; on June 4, 1957 William H. Buell was elected school district secretary for a 4 year term. Both individuals were elected by the Union Township board of school directors, 1 said. Township being located in Washington County.
On December 2, 1957 Buell and Philips were dismissed by the board of school directors without any hearing or stated cause. Buell and Philips each sued the school district in assumpsit for an alleged wrongful discharge from employment and claimed their re *569 spective salaries for the balance of the unexpired terms for which they had been elected. Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer filed by the school district were sustained by the 'Court of Common Pleas of Washington County and from its order these appeals were taken.
The respective contentions of the parties are clear. Appellants contend that the exclusive method for the removal of school district officers, such as a secretary and treasurer, is provided by art. V, §514 of the School Code of 1949, 2 which states “The board of school directors in any school district, except as herein otherwise provided, shall after due notice, giving the reasons therefor, and after hearing if demanded, have the right at any time to remove any of its officers . . . for ineompetency, intemperance, neglect of duty, violation of any of the school laws of this Commonwealth, or other improper conduct.” On the other hand, appellee justifies appellants’ summary removal on the basis of art. VI, §4 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which provides “Appointed officers, other than judges of the courts of record and the Superintendent of Public Instruction, may be removed at the pleasure of the power by which they shall have been .appointed.”
Neither Buell nor Philips were elected by popular vote; the source of their selection was the board of school directors and while the selection of appellants is termed an election under the statute, actually it was an appointment. Both appointees were selected at a fixed salary for a fixed term.
The present problem lacks novelty. That a treasurer or collector of public monies, including a treasurer of a school district, is a “public officer” as distinguished from an “employee” is clear:
Commonwealth
*570
v. Evans,
As to the status of a school district treasurer we have expressly held that a school district treasurer is removable at the pleasure of the appointive power under art. VI, §4 of the Constitution. In
Commonwealth v. Sulzner,
As to the status of a school district secretary, while we have not passed directly on such status it is equally clear that a school district secretary is removable at the pleasure of the body which appointed him. In
Commonwealth ex rel. v. Likeley,
To the extent that Art. V, §514 of the School Code of 1949 is in conflict with Art. VI, §4 of the Constitution, the former is invalid.
No compelling reason has been advanced to justify a change of position by this Court or to predicate our adoption of a new policy which would require that we overrule these several decision's of this Court. Moreover, as a practical matter, it seems better to allow the *572 discretion of removability at pleasure of these appointed school officials to rest upon the board of school directors. The secretary and treasurer of a school board must not only work for the board of school directors, but with it.
Order affirmed. Costs on appellants.
Notes
By virtue of the Act of March 10, 1949, P. L. 30, art. IV. §404, as amended by the Act of August 9, 1955, P. L. 320, §1, 24 PS §4-404.
Act of March 10, 1949, P. L. 30, art. V, §514, 24 PS §5-514.
Decided prior to the Act of May 18, 1911, P. L. 309. §§408, 407, the first legislative provision providing a method of removal of school district officers.
See note 3, supra.