THE APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14684, 18 November 1909, Page 6

THE APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS.

Not always does the judicial interpretation of a statute coincido so closely with, the ordinary sense of what is right and proper as did a decision given a few days ago by Mr Justice Cooper in his determination of a question that was submitted to him with respect to the terms of appointment of public school teachers. The Marlborough Education Board enjoys the unenviable distinction among the Boards of the Dominion of having introduced a system of appointmont that seems tc have been expressly designed to prevent the teachers under its service from availing themselves of the statutory right of appeal against dismissal ,or suspension'. Having had an unfortunate experience of tlio provisions of the law undei which this right of appeal is secured to teachers, it adopted a few years ago the system of engaging its teachers from year to year only and upop no other terms. " Your appointment is for one year only" a successful applicant for a position would be formally advised, •' but- will be renewed annually so long as you give satisfaction to the Board." It was admitted on behalf cf the Board, ii> the course of proceedings that were recently instituted under the useful Declaratory Judgments Act of last year with the view of testing the legality of this system of appointment, that the effect was to deprive the teachers in tho service of tho Board of the qualified right of appeal against dismissal or suspension that was intended by law to be conferred upon all public school teachers in Now Zealand. There can be no doubt that it was with this express purpose that the system was introduced, and we cannot but welcome a. decision of the Supreme Court that will nceessitato tho abandonment by the Board of such a grossly improper method of procedure. But it is evident from Mi Justice Cooper's decision that the mischief of tho plan which has been employed by the Marlborough Education 13curd was mora widespread than this. Not only did the system of appointments which it adopted deprive the teachers in its service of their statutory right of appeal against the termination of their engagement, but. since the benefits of the .superannuation scheme arc available only to teachers who are "permanently employed," it also rendered abortive the provisions of the Superannuation Act in its relation to the teachers it engaged. Further, the practice of the Board involved an encroachment upon the rights of school committees as well as a serious abridgment of tho rights of teachers, for the effect of the system of yearly appointments was to deprive the committees of the statutory right of consultation ill reference to the termination of ;i teacher's engagement. For these reasons, among others, Mr Justice Cooper has held that tho system of appointment of teachers which has been adopted in Marlborough is in breach of the statute and is beyond tlio power and authority of the Board. We hope that the decision, oi which the soundness must, we think, be generally acknowledged, will speedily find its issue in the abandonment by the Marlborough ' Education Board of a system that has brought uo credit upon it.