APPOINTMENT TO PUBLIC SERVICE

Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26491, 4 August 1951, Page 8

APPOINTMENT TO PUBLIC SERVICE

VALIDITY UPHELD BY COURT

MOTION FOR INJUNCTION DISMISSED (New Zealand Pre** Auocfotion; WELLINGTON, August 3. The validity of tne appointment of Mgrtin Denis W*tts as a terhporary civil servant with .the Internal Affdirs Department and attached to the Prime Minister’s office has been Upheld by a judgment delivered to-day in the Supreme Cetirt by Mr Justice Gresson. His Hrinour aisrhissied the motion fdr ail injunction brought on July 23 by the New Zealand Public Service Association and four civil servants against the three members of the Public Service Commission, seeking to restrain the defendants from retaining Watts in the employment of the Public Service. Jt was claimed that the defendants; in appointing Watts on December 13,, 1949, acted without jurisdiction and contrary to law by reason of their failure to observe certain provisions of the Public Service Act, 1922, and amendments ahd regulations under the act. ~ , His Honour in the judgment delivered to-day said the terhporary employment authorised under section 45 (1) of the act depended both upon the Minister's considering further assistance necessary for. the prompt dispatch of business and the inability of the Public Service Commission to supply that assistance from other departments. The need must be supplied by the Commission’s selection frorn those whose names were 0n a register ana the period of appointment was specifically limited. But the section went further, said his Honour. To ehSct that, the Corhmisston could, in its disbretion as regards public interest, authorise temporary employment without restriction as to whri might be employed and for how long. No qualification of that power existed in the sub-section (5) except that the appointment be deemed in the public interest. Ahy ihterpretation of that sub section must in view of its wording prevail over any inconsistent provisions elsewhere in the section.

“I do not find any warrant for limiting the generality of the words in subsection (5).” added his Honour. “Nor do I find in any of the subsequent legislation any indication that the language of sub-section (5) is to be construed as meaning less than it says.” The appointment had therefore been made in the administrative discretion of the Public Service Commission and within jurisdiction. Mr Trevor Henry, with him Mr Nigel Taylor, appeared for the plaintiffs, and the Solicitor-Geheral (Mr H. E. Evans, K.C.) for the defendants.