DEBATABLE POINT

Southland Times, Issue 19899, 18 June 1926, Page 8

DEBATABLE POINT

TEACHERS APPOINTMENTS. EDUCATION ACT QUESTIONED. INSTITUTE SEEKS DECLARATORY 1 JUDGMENT. (Per United Press Association.) Wellington, June 17. Whether the Education Act prejudices unmarried male or female teachers’ appointment- was a question brought before the Supreme Court, when the Educational Institute sought a "declaratory judgment,” the defendants being the Wellington and Otago Education Boards. Mr Justice McGregor was the presiding Judge, Mr Evans appeared for the plaintiff. Mr Hislop for the Wellington Board, and Mr Fair for the Education Minister and the Otago Board. Plaintiff asked the Court to answer a series of questions regarding the powers of Boards to give preference or refrain from making appointments in view of certain sections of the Act, counsel stating that the object of the proceedings was to ask the Court to decide whether women teachers and unmarried teachers were as a class to be denied an opportunity of competing for positions in the service. He said they were denied that opportunity by the present practice of Boards. Mr McGregor raised the following questions:— (li Whether the Institute had any status to take proceedings. (2i Whether the plaintiffs had any interest in the construction of the Act and the regulations, so as to enable them to issue an originating summons. (3) Whether, in the discretion of the Court, it should in such circumstances answer the questions submitted. His Honour remarked that the Institute seemed to be purely a voluntary body. Mr Evans said it was at any rate the mouthpiece of the teachers. His Honour: “I want something more than a mouthpiece. I want a body of teachers.” The Court adjourned to allow the plaintiffs xo provide further information.