251 A.D. 689 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1937
Both the relator and the defendant claim the office of county superintendent of highways of Oswego county. The position is concededly in the competitive class of the classified civil service. The relator was appointed superintendent of highways by resolution of the board of supervisors on the 13th day of
The relator claims to be entitled to the office either by virtue of his appointment by the resolution of the board of supervisors adopted on the 14th day of November, 1932, or, if that appointment is ineffective because of his failure to file the oath of office within fifteen days (N. Y. Const, art. 13, § 1; Public Officers Law, § 30, subd. 7) under the resolution of the board of supervisors
We find it unnecessary to pass upon the claims of the relator as to the source of his right to the office for we conclude that the defendant has not been duly appointed. We read the submission as a full statement of the facts relating to the appointment and eligibility both of the relator and the defendant. It does not appear that the provisional appointment of the defendant was made in compliance with the provisions of section 15, subdivision 1, of the Civil Service Law. The appointing body is not shown to have nominated the defendant to the State Civil Service Commission for non-competitive examination or that he was certified by the Commission as qualified after non-competitive examination. These are prerequisites for the effective provisional appointment. The assistant secretary of the Department of Civil Service, in his letter of November tenth, which has been referred to, when stating that the board was at liberty to make a provisional appointment pending the establishment of an eligible list, did not attempt to state the law as to what the prerequisites to the appointment were and the Board in acting upon this letter and making a provisional appointment without complying with the law, did not make a legal appointment. It is not necessary, therefore, for us to consider whether a provisional appointment can be made where the vacancy to be filled is a vacancy by expiration of office, the former incumbent holding over under the provisions of section 5 of the Public Officers Law.
For these reasons we conclude that the relator is entitled to the office of county superintendent of highways until his successor shall be chosen and shall qualify.
Judgment should be granted in favor of the relator, without costs.
All concur. Present •— Sears, P. J., Edgcomb, Crosby, Lewis and Taylor, JJ.
Submitted controversy determined in favor of relator, without costs.