Clark v. State Personnel Board

California Court of Appeal Dec 17, 1943 No. Civ. 6917Published

Before: Peek

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a petitioner must exhaust all available administrative remedies, including a petition for rehearing before the State Personnel Board, before seeking judicial relief via a writ of mandate. Because the petitioner failed to timely seek a rehearing, the superior court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

Issues

Whether a petitioner must exhaust administrative remedies, including a petition for rehearing, before seeking a writ of mandate in court.
Whether the superior court had jurisdiction to hear the petition for a writ of mandate when the petitioner failed to timely seek an administrative rehearing.

Disposition. reversed and remanded with directions to dismiss

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the superior court was without jurisdiction to entertain her petition for writ of mandate.”

“The enforcement of the rule requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies before resort to the courts is not a matter of judicial discretion but is a fundamental rule of procedure.”

[801]

PEEK, J.

This is an appeal by petitioner from a judgment denying her petition for a writ of mandate.

The only facts pertinent to a disposition of this appeal are that on October 27, 1939, petitioner filed with the State Personnel Board a petition for correction of her civil service classification which she alleged to be erroneous; that such petition was denied on February 6, 1940; that on March 28, 1940, she filed with the Superior Court of Sacramento County a petition for a writ of mandate to compel the board to enter her name on the roster of said board as a senior account clerk as of June 25, 1931, and for judgment for the accumulated difference in salary during such period; that not until November 17, 1941, after the entry of judgment denying her petition for a writ of mandate in the superior court and approximately twenty-one months after the board had denied her petition for correction of her classification, did she request a rehearing of said petition. The board thereupon adopted a resolution that her position be reclassified as senior account clerk as of May 25, 1931, conditioned upon her filing a waiver of back salary and wages to the date of said resolution.

Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 23 of the Rules and Regulations of the State Personnel Board provide in effect that decisions by the board shall become final after ten days from the time of service of such decision upon the person or persons affected thereby, and that an application for a rehearing after such decision by the board may be granted if an application in writing is made thereafter any time within ten days after said service of notice; while section 173(c) of the Civil Service Act (Stats. 1937, p. 2085, Deering’s General Laws 1937, Act 1404) provides that within thirty days from and after receipt of a copy of the decision by the board either the employee or the appointing power may apply for a rehearing by filing a written petition therefor.

If under the procedure set forth in said act and the rules of said board the rule of the exhaustion of administrative remedies before resort may be had to the courts applies, the failure of petitioner to request a rehearing in accordance with the provisions mentioned before filing her petition for a writ of mandate is fatal.

In the case of

Clark v. State Personnel Board

AI Brief

PEEK, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief