Dean Patterson appeals from a circuit court order dismissing his petition for review of a Board of Regents determination. Patterson used registered mail rather than certified mail to serve his petition on the Board. The court concluded that because sec. 227. 16(1) (a), Stats., requires either personal service or service by certified mail, Patterson’s use of registered mail did not satisfy the statutory requirements. Because service by registered mail more than fulfills the statutory purpose behind the requirement of service by certified mail, we reverse the court’s order dismissing Patterson’s petition for review.
The statutes establish the procedure that allows a party to obtain judicial review of an adverse agency determination. If the statutory requirements for obtaining judicial review are not fully complied with, the subject matter jurisdiction of the circuit court cannot be invoked.
Cudahy v. Department of Revenue,
Only if the use of registered mail satisfies the statutory requirements does the circuit court gain jurisdiction over Patterson’s petition for review. In construing sec. 227.16, this court must try to harmonize the two major purposes behind the Administrative Procedure Act. One goal is to maintain the orderly administration of the ju
*360
dicial process by requiring strict compliance with ch. 227. This goal is counterbalanced by the intent to afford the appellant every opportunity to get into court and secure a reversal upon any ground that the statute may countenance so long as he apprises his adversaries of the nature of his grievance at least by the time the appeal comes on for hearing.
Hamilton v. DILHR,
The Board of Regents argues that because sec. 227.16 requires service by certified mail, use of registered mail does not strictly comply with the language of the statute. A statute, however, must be construed in light of its purpose.
Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC,
The Board argues that “[i]f the statutory prescriptions to obtain jurisdiction are to be meaningful they must be unbending.”
519 Corp. v. Department of Transportation,
By the Court. — Order reversed and cause remanded.
