TEACHER'S CONDUCT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18130, 30 June 1922, Page 7

TEACHER'S CONDUCT.

MISS PARK'S CERTIFICATE. CANCELLATION ILLEGAL. COURT GRANTS INJUNCTION. [BT TELEOKAPH. —PEESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON. Thursdivy. In granting an injunction against the Minister for Education, Hon. G. J. Parr, as applied for by Miss Park, school teacher of Carterton. Mr. Justice Salmond to-day jHaid: — J " Certain charges of disloyalty and insubordination having been made against the plaintiff, the Wellington Education Board recently held an inquiry, 'with a view to the suspension or dismissal of the plaintiff in the event of the charges being sustan'tiated. This inquiiy was in plaintiiFs favour, and" no further action -was taken by the board. The Minister for Education, however, beinfj dissatisfied with the methods and results of th* board's investigation, proposes to institute a further inquiry into the same or similar charges, with a view to j the cancellation or suspension of the plaintiff's certificate. I "It is now contended on behalf of ! plaintiff that the regulation is ultra vires jand that the Minister has, therefore, no j power to suspend or cancel a teacher's I certificate. The question so raised is one of considerable importance, both with respect to the security of tenure possessed bv teachers in the public schools, and with respect to the autonomous authority of Education Boards, as opposed 'to the I Minister for Education, in the appointment, •transfer, promotion, and dismissal of their ' employees. The Education Act, 1914, con- ', tains no express authority for the making I of reguls tions for the cancellation or sus- ! pension of certificates, nor does it contain any reference to such cancellation or suspension. Section 161 expressly authorises i regulations for the issue of such certificates, but not for their suspension or cancellation. It is contended, however, on behalf of the Minister, that sufficient authority fot' this purpose is conferred by the final paragraph of that section, which authorises the Governor-General to make regulations 'for I any purposes which he thinks necessary, in order to secure the due administration of this Act.' Whether those general .vtrds are sufficient to authorise the regu ion now in question, depends on whether tho Ministerial power of suspending or cancelling a teacher's certificates is consistent with the provisions and purposes of the j Education Act itself, as to the status of j teachers and as to the powers of Education Boards

Begulation Ultra Vires. fl I am of opinion it is inconsistent with those provisions and purposes, and tnat the regulation in question ia therefore ultra vires and void. " Dealing in the first place -with the alleged power of suspension it seems to be clear that no such thing as a suspended certificate is contemplated by the Act. Section 71, which is the only relevant provision, merely enacts that no person shall be eligible for appointments as a teacher I in a public school who does not ' produce' Uthat is to say, hold) a teacher's certificate. The person so • holding a certificate is deacribed in the same section as a ' certificated' teacher. There axe, therefore, only two alternatives. An applicant for appointi ment is either a certificated teacher or he is not. He either holds a certificate or he does not. There is no intermediate case contemplated of «■ certificated teacher, whose certificate is suspended, and who is therefore temporarily disqualified for ap- . Doiritment. So such intermediate class of j persons, therefore, can be constituted by regulations.

A Permanent Status. " Passing to the more important question of cancellation, I am of opinion that the whole scheme of the Education Act, with respect to the- appointment and tenure of teachers, and with respect to the powers of Education Boards, necessitates the conclusion that the grant of the certificate confers upon a teacLer a permanent status, of which he cannot be deprived by the Minister for Education. A teacher's certificate resembles in this respect a degree, diploma ot certificate of proficiency, granted by the University. By the New Zealand University Act, 1908. the Senate | of that university is expressly empowered j to grant euch degrees, diplomas, and oertiI ficates, but it cannot revoke its grant. ! Similarly the Education Act expressly ' authorises the issue of certificates of com- ! petency. but neither expressly nor in> ! pliedly authorises the revocation of certifi- | cates so issued.

"There will he an injunction restrainine the Minister for Education from doing any Act whereby ha purports to cancel or suspend, the certificate held by the plaintiff under the Education Act. 1914."