stating that policy of tenure legislation “demands that permanent appointments be made only if the teachers are found suitable for the positions after a qualifying trial period”
How later courts described this case
- stating that policy of tenure legislation “demands that permanent appointments be made only if the teachers are found suitable for the positions after a qualifying trial period”
- stating that interpretation of “employment” that would “shorten the length of the minimum probationary period * * * would clearly detract from the statutory purpose”
- “ ‘Many intangible qualities must be taken into account, and, since lack of them may not constitute good cause for dismissal under a tenure statute, the [employer] * * * is entitled to a period of preliminary scrutiny, during which the protection of tenure does not apply, in order that it may make pragmatically informed and unrestricted decisions as to an applicant’s suitability.’”
- recognizing employment began with the commencement of service
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Proctor, J.
(concurring). The issue in this case is a narrow one, i. e., is the appellant entitled to reinstatement as a teacher with tenure. I agree with the opinion of Justice Schettino that the appellant never achieved tenure status and therefore is not entitled to reinstatement on that basis. Since the answer to this question is dispositive of the case, I see no need for an excursion into tangential areas raised by the arguments.
Weintratjb, C. J., and Jacobs and Hall, JJ., concurring in result.
For affirmance — Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Jacobs, Erancis, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Hane-man — 7.
For reversal — Hone.