Heath v. Board of Examiners

Per Curiam. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant, John F. Heath, appealed from a decree of the chancellor dismissing his bill of complaint filed under Code (1957), Article 31A, Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, against the appellees, Board of Examiners and Supervisors of Master Electricians for Baltimore City (the Board). The bill alleged that the appellant was a citizen, taxpayer and resident of Baltimore City, and as such is interested and entitled to insist on the proper and legal operation of the Board; that the Board, created under the charter and public laws of Baltimore, as it is presently constituted, is illegally appointed; that as such it does not represent the interests of the appellant or other taxpayers to serve the purpose for which the Board was created; that the appointments of four of the members of the Board were made illegally, in violation of Article 4, Public Local Laws of Maryland, City Charter (1949 Ed.) § 479; and that unless the Board is restrained from conducting its affairs in an illegal manner, appellant’s rights and the rights of other parties complaining will continue to be affected. The prayers of the bill are that the Board, or such members thereof as are found to have been appointed illegally, may, by a permanent injunction, be enjoined from acting as members of the Board; that the court pass a declaratory decree removing such illegally appointed persons from the Board, and requiring the return to the State of Maryland of any monies paid during their illegal tenure in office; and for further relief.

The Board answered the bill saying that it was without knowledge as to the truth or veracity of the allegation the appellant was a citizen and taxpayer, and denying the other allegations of the bill. The four named members of the Board sought and obtained leave to intervene, and filed a separate demurrer and answer. Their answer denied the same allegations of the bill which were denied in the Board’s answer. The record extract contains a letter from Judge Cullen, dated January 29, 1962, stating that the demurrer of the interven ²³³ ing defendants had been withdrawn in open court and that the cause would proceed on a hearing on the bill and answer.

At the