APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS

Southland Times, Issue 17665, 24 February 1916, Page 3

APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS

SUPREME COURT ACTION. , A case of importance to teachers throughout Now Zealand came before His Honour Mr Justice Chapman, in the Supremo Court at Wellington, on Saturday, nth December last. In September, 1015, the Alarlboroug'n Education Board advertised for a headteacher for the Koromiko School. Several applications from teachers were received by the Board at its next meeting, when the Senior Inspector (Air Sturrock) duly informed the Board that Airs Howard, of AVaikawa School, was the best applicant. The proper cottr.se then for the Board was to follow the directions laid down in the Education Act, 1011, sections 71 and 72 (Appointment of Teachers). The Board, however, did not follow the course laid down by law, and instead of sending to the Koromiko School Committee only Airs Howard’s qualifications, together with a .statement of Iter length of service, etc., it followed that course with regard to three applicants, a course only allowable tinder sub-section 7 of section 7T—that is to say when the tit roc candidate-i possess as nearly ns may he equal qualifications. The Board in this case also sent to the School Committee a letter of recommendation in favour of Mrs Howard, thereby admitting that the best applicant was Airs Howard (see sub-section 6 of section 71). As a matter of fact there was never the slightest doubt in the minds of those competent to judge that Airs Howard was easily the best applicant

and the most suitable. The Koromiko School Committee duly met. and having been given ’by the Board the choice qf a teacher from three applicants not possessing as nearly as may be equal qualifications, decided, strange to say, not in favour of Mrs Howard, but in favour of one of the other two candidates, making no reference to Mrs Howard whatever. Mrs Howard promptly wrote to the Board respectfully claiming the appointment according to sub-section 0. Sho also wrote without delay to the Marlborough District Institute, appealing for justice. The Committee of .Management Instructed its secretary to write to the Board, directing its attention to the Act of 101 4 and the new provisions contained therein, and asking it to make all appointments accordingly (including tiie Koromiko appointment). The Board at its next meeting did not appoint sirs Howard, hut instead decided to arrange a conference between itself and the .School Committee. Strong support wat shown by certain members of the Board in favour of the Committee's nominee, and a motion by ono of tile Board to appoint Mrs Howard failed to get a seconder. The facts of the case were now in the hands of the executive of the New Zealand Educational Institute, and Messrs Boil, Gully and Myers were duly instructed in the matter. The only course left open in order to safeguard Mrs Howard's interests was that a mandamus should issue to the Education Board to appoint Mrs Howard to the position in Koromiko School; or, alternatively, that the Board may ho restrained by a writ of injunction from appointing any other person than Mrs Howard to the position in dispute. The Board upon being informed of intended legal action thereupon held a special meeting, and on the same day the Koromiko School Committee met ihc Board at the latter's office. Still Mrs Howard was not appointed, and the Board decided to defend the action in the Supreme Court. The case was duly argued before the Judge, and resulted entirely in Mrs Howard's favour. The Judge directed the Board to send forthwith to the School Committee the qualifications of only Mrs Howard, together with the names only of the other applicants, and generally to proceed in pursuance of section 72. .suitsection 6. and paragraph (a) of section 72, sub-sectinn 2, of the Statute. Two days later (Lilli December), the Board met, and proceeded (not by any means unanimously) to carry out the Judge's directions. Finally, the Board held a special meeting on 30th December, ami duly appointed -Mrs Howard head teacher of Koromiko School.

The Institute was particularly active in seeing that the appointment was marie before the end of 1 111,1, and the Judge directed the Board to do so. The school wti.s falling in attendance, and if the appointment had not been made till llilO Mrs Howard's salary would have been seriously affected. Comments on this case would take up too much space, hut it can bo readily seen that it opens up a wide lield for discussion—discussion which should not be necessary in the year Jn order to have the full benefits of that discussion teachers would need to peruse evorv one of the newspaper reports of the Hoard's action in the matter, and they would lie amazed at what they would lead. Even after -the decision of the t'onrt several members of the Board showed the strongest determination to oppose liie right course. The clauses of iii•• Education Act, HU I, rererred to are as follows: Sec, 71. sub-section I—The1 —The Board .shall in accordance with this Act and regulations thereunder appoint teachers for the schools under its control. Sec. 7!. sub-section ",—Before making any such appointment the Board shall consult with the Senior I inspector, ami shall take into account the fitness for the vacant position of all those teachers in the employment of the Board who lon i- signified to the Board their desire for transfer, and also of al! those, teachers who have applied lor the nppoinlia< nl. whether they are resident, or employed in the district of that Board or not. Sec. 71. sub-section fl —In any ease v. 1 1 -ei aoplieat ions have beeir invited the Board shall ;-ea el the teaeher whom it considers last titled for the position. See. 71, sub-section 7—Notwithstanding sub-section (>, if it appears to flic! Board, after consultation witli the Senior Inspector, that two or more candidates possess a; nearly as may be j equal qualifications, then, but in no other ! ease, tile Board may select not nioicj than farce of such candidates for eon- 1