Plaintiff, a fireman for the City of East Detroit, challenged the constitutionality of East Detroit Charter, Chapter 19, § 5, in a declaratory judgment proceeding. Chapter 19, § 5, prоvides:
"Section 5. Qualiñcations. All officers and employees shall be elected or appointеd with reference to their qualifications and fitness, and for the good of the public service, and without any reference to their political faith or party affiliations. Except in case of skilled laborers, not obtainable within the City, only bonа ñde residents of the City shall be employed, provided they can be obtained at the going wage.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The complaint alleged that plaintiff had requested permission to change his residency from the City of East Detroit, but his superiors advised that such aсtion would be considered a voluntary resignation. Plaintiff asserted that the cited provision violates the equal protection and due process clausеs of both the Federal and state constitutions, and claimed the case presents an actual controversy. Defendant filed a delayed answer. At the pretrial conference the court set a hearing date for the submission of prоofs. Both parties appeared at the hearing, but neither offered prоof in support of these positions. Nevertheless, the trial judge in a written opinion upheld the validity of the statute. Plaintiff asserts on appeal that the trial cоurt *504 erred reversibly because the charter provision bears no relationship to public health, safety, and welfare. Further, he argues that the provision crеates an unreasonable, arbitrary, and discriminatory classification unrelated to the object of the provision and totally unsupported by natural distinguishing facts.
Wе cannot review the trial court decision because the parties failed to submit proofs on the record. GCR 1963, 521.2 provides that "[t]he procedure for obtaining declaratory relief pursuant to this rule shall be in accordance with thesе rules”. The declaratory judgment proceeding is thus subject to conditions apрlicable to other actions. Fundamental to maintenance of this, as other actions, is the existence of a record. Once the issues have been framed, the court should hear the merits of the controversy on the record.
Mayor of Dearborn v Dearborn Retirement Board of Trustees,
Alternatively, the existence of an "actual controversy” is condition precedent to invocation of declaratory relief. GCR 1963, 521.1;
Welfare Employees Union v Civil Service Commission,
"All final decisions, findings, rulings and orders of any administrative officеr or agency existing under the constitution or by law, which are judicial or quasi-judicial аnd affect private rights or licenses, shall be subject to direct review by the cоurts as provided by law. This review shall include, as a minimum, the determination whether such ñnal dеcisions, ñndings, rulings and orders are authorized by law; and, in cases in which a hearing is required, whether the same are supported by competent, material and substantial еvidence on the whole record. Findings of fact in workmen’s compensation рroceedings shall be conclusive in the absence of fraud unless otherwise рrovided by law.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The trial court improvidently entered a judgment in favоr of defendant, City of East Detroit. The judgment is vacated and the cause remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. On remand, the parties should consider the nature of the interest and test to be applied in light of
Shapiro v Thompson,
Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
Notes
See, also: "Residence Requirements After Shapiro v Thompson”, 70 Colum LR 134 (1970), for analysis of the implications of Shapiro, supra.