Rodrigue v. Rogers

HALL, J.

Plaintiff filed in the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco his petition for a writ of review as to certain proceedings taken by «the civil service commissioners of the .city and county, of San Francisco, and upon the return thereto and hearing thereon judgment was rendered, annulling the action of the civil service commissioners in the respect complained of, and this appeal is from such judgment.

In the month of February, 1900, the civil service commissioners, in accordance with the provisions of the charter of the city and county of San Francisco, classified all the places of employment in or under the officers and departments of the said city and county mentioned in section 11 of article XIII of the charter, with reference to the examinations provided for by said article. Among the classes established was one designated as “Ordinary Clerks,” from which the extra clerks authorized by the charter to be appointed by certain officers are to be selected. Subsequently in June, 1900, an examination was held for “Ordinary Clerks,” which was taken by plaintiff, and as a result his name was placed upon the register of eligibles for appointment as “Ordinary Clerk.” Subsequently, September 19, 1900, the board of election commissioners, in accordance with the provisions of the charter, requested the civil service commissioners to certify to the department of elections the names and addresses of persons standing highest upon the register of eligibles. Plaintiff’s name and one other were certified, and he was appointed to a position in the department of elections on the twentieth day of September, 1900, and continued to perform the duties thereof until the thirteenth day of October, 1900, when his duties in the said department of elections were fully performed and completed. It is alleged in the petition, “that

[259]

the plaintiff, since his said certification and appointment, has performed, when his services 'as such ‘ Ordinary Clerk’ have been required, the duties of such ‘ Ordinary Clerk, ’ in said department, in the office of the tax collector and in the office of the auditor”; but by the return to the writ it appears that each employment has been by virtue of a new certification and appointment.

In May, 1903, another examination for applicants for positions as ordinary clerks was held, and thereafter the names of the successful applicants at the second examination were placed upon the register of eligibles with the names of those who had successfully passed the first examination, all the names of applicants—those passing the first and those passing the second examination—being placed on the one register of eligibles in the order of the relative excellence of their examinations without regard to priority of examinations. It is this action of the civil service commissioners that is complained of by plaintiff. His name on the consolidated register came lower than on the first register, and his contention is that by virtue of his appointment to a position he was removed from the register of eligibles, and became a permanent employee of the city in the position of “Ordinary Clerk.” This contention was sustained by the trial court, and the correctness of this action is now before us for review.