Rapp v. Los Angeles City School District

[343]

SCOTT, J.,

pro tem.

Petitioner requested the trial court to issue a writ of mandate requiring respondents to reinstate her as a permanent teacher. The writ was denied and she appeals, declaring that she was not properly served with statutory notices within the time required by law.

Chapter VII of the School Code (Deering’s Gen. Laws, 1931, vol. 3, p. 4187) deals with dismissals. Section 5.652 provides: “The board shall not act upon any charges of incompetency filed by a member of the board or by any employee of the district unless the employee against whom such charge is filed shall have had notice of his incompetency given him by the governing board or by an authorized representative thereof at least three months prior to the date of the filing of the charges. ’

’

Pursuant to that section respondents, on February 12, 1932, deposited in the United States mail, registered return receipt requested, a notice addressed to petitioner notifying her that she was incompetent. She received the notice the next day, February 13th, and signed the receipt therefor. Other sections provide that to dismiss a permanent teacher following the notice required by section 5.652, written charges must be filed and notice must be given the employee not later than May 15th that he will be dismissed at the end of the school year unless he demands a hearing. Such notice must be sent by registered mail (sec. 5.651), and the hearing must be demanded within thirty days (see. 5.654) from the date of mailing of such notice. In this ease the written charge was filed May 13, 1932, and notice of the same was sent to petitioner May 14th, by registered mail, and was received May 16th. No hearing on the charges was demanded by petitioner, and her dismissal became effective with the close of the school year.

It is now urged that notice of incompetency was not given to petitioner three months prior to filing of the written charges, although such notice was actually received by her on February 13th and the charges were not filed until May 13th. It would appear that the rule for computation of time, to-wit, by excluding the first day and including the last, would apply, (Code Civ. Proc., see. 12; Civ. Code, sec. 10; Pol. Code, sec. 12.) We further observe that the thirty days allowed by section 5.654 within which petitioner