Child v. State Personnel Board

California Court of Appeal May 11, 1950 No. Civ. 7766Published

Before: Peek

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the action was properly dismissed because the plaintiff failed to join indispensable parties and failed to exhaust administrative remedies by petitioning for a rehearing before the State Personnel Board.

Issues

Whether persons named on eligible lists and those appointed from them are indispensable parties to an action seeking to void those lists and appointments.
Whether a plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies by petitioning for a rehearing before the State Personnel Board prior to seeking judicial relief.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the rule of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires a request for rehearing as a condition precedent to an appeal to the courts.”

“plaintiff for the reasons stated has failed to bring himself within the jurisdiction of the superior court”

PEEK, J.

Plaintiff, appellant herein, after being eliminated from further participation in two civil service examinations, brought an action to cancel the examinations and the eligible lists established therefrom, and to have all appointments made from such lists declared void.

By the first cause of his complaint it is alleged that the State Personnel Board, after notice thereof, conducted certain civil service examinations in accordance with the statement set forth in said notices; that he was a participant in said examinations; that although he passed said tests he was unlawfully failed in the written portion of each examination and arbitrarily barred from further participation, and that the eligible lists which were established as a result thereof and the appointments made thereunder are illegal and void.

The second cause alleges that the board and its executive officer arbitrarily and in excess of their authority changed the method of computing the required minimum score in each of said examinations, that the said defendants acting in accordance with said altered method arbitrarily disqualified and eliminated plaintiff from further participation, and that a hearing was had before said board but that his petition was denied. His complaint concludes with a prayer that such examinations be declared illegal and void, and that the examinations and eligible lists established as a result thereof likewise be declared illegal and void.

Defendants’ demurrer was sustained without leave to amend and judgment was accordingly entered in favor of respondents. From the judgment so entered plaintiff has appealed.

At the outset it must be noted that only the State Personnel Board, its members and its executive officer are named as defendants. Neither the persons named in said eligible lists nor any of the persons appointed to positions therefrom are named as parties defendants.

From the foregoing it is readily apparent that if any eligible lists so established by respondent board are nullified in accordance with appellant’s contentions the rights of each person appointed from such lists as well as every person whose name appears thereon would be injured, and hence every person appearing in either category was not only a

necessary

but an

[469]

Child v. State Personnel Board

AI Brief

PEEK, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief