Semmes v. Rowland

Pattison, J., delivered the opinion of the Court- In January, 1909, Miss Ethel Rowland, the appellee, who will hereafter be referred' to as the relator, received from the Secretary of the Board of School Commissioners of Baltimore, the appellants, who will hereafter be called- the respondents, the following letter: “Baltimore, January 13, 1909. “To Miss Ethel Rowland: “You are hereby notified that by action of’ the Board of School Commissioners of Baltimore, dated as above, you have been appointed as a teacher in the Public Schools of Baltimore ²⁶³ City, to take effect upon your signing the prescribed letter of acceptance. But this appointment is upon the proviso that your aptness to teach shall be made manifest by your actual work as a teacher, to be tested by inspection by the Superintendent of Instruction from time to time during the twelve months following your election, and that' if at any time during such twelve months your work or conduct as a teacher shall be deemed unsatisfactory by the Superintendent, this appointment may be cancelled by the Board on ten days’ notice to you. GO M w E-i “This appointment is subject, also, to the provisions of the Act of the General Assembly of Maryland, known as the 'Teachers’ Retirement Act,’ passed at the Session of 1908. “Tours respectfully, “John H. Roche, “Secretary of the Board of School Commissioners.” With the above was enclosed a letter addressed to the respondents, to be signed and returned by the relator to them, should she accept the appointment, under the terms and conditions contained' in the letter to her. She accepted the appointment and signed and returned the letter, which is as follows: “Baltimobe, January 15, 1909. the Board of School Commissioners, 'Tt Baltimore— “I hereby accept the appointment as teacher in the Public Schools made by you in accordance with the terms of your letter of appointment, including compliance with the provisions of the Act of the General Assembly of Maryland, known as the 'Teachers’ Retirement Act,’ passed at the Session of 1908. “Ethel Rowland." Thereafter she was assigned to teach at one of the public schools of the City, known as School No. 63, and while so ²⁶⁴ teaching she received the following letter from the Secretary of the Respondents: “Baltimore, December 23, 1909. “Miss Ethel Rowland, City. “Dear Miss Rowland : “I am instructed by the Board of School Commissioners to notify you, which I now do, that your appointment, of date January 13, 1909, is hereby cancelled, to take effect from ten days from date, as per contract signed by you under date of January 15, 1909, your work being reported as unsatisfactory by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. “Yours very respectfully, “John H. Roche, “Secretary.” After the expiration of the time mentioned in this last letter to her, the relator was not permitted, by the respondents, to teach.

Whereupon, on the 18th day of January, 1910, she filed her petition in the Baltimore City Court, asking that a writ of mandamus be issued against the respondents requiring them to reinstate her as a teacher and that she be assigned by them to teach at one of the public schools of the City. In her petition she alleges the facts above stated and further alleged that she was dismissed or removed as a teacher without charges being preferred against her and without trial thereon; that she was ready and willing to teach but was not permitted to do so by the respondents, and that in consequence thereof she has suffered and continues to suffer irreparable damages. The respondents filed their answer in which they admit the appointment of the relator upon the terms and conditions disclosed by the correspondence above given, and likewise admit the cancellation of the appointment as stated and their refusal to permit her to teach after the time named in the cancellation notice dated December 23rd, 1909. They also ²⁶⁵ admit that no opportunity was given to her to he heard upon any charge preferred against her, and allege that it was not incumbent upon them to do so; that by the terms and conditions of the appointment, to which she had agreed, they had the absolute right to cancel it when and as it was done.

In the answer they allege that “James H. Van Sickle, Superintendent of Instruction, having tested the work and conduct of the petitioner as a teacher, by inspection thereof from time to time since her appointment, made the following report to the Board of School Commissioners: “ ‘December 22, 1909. “‘To the Board of School Commissioners: Gentlemen— “ ‘We have to report that Miss Ethel Rowland, now completing her year of probationary teaching, has in spite of an unusually large amount of supervisory assistance, made so little progress and shown such a lack of promise toward ever becoming a good teacher, that, in our judgment, she should not be retained in the service after the expiration of the trial year. “ ‘Under the terms of the contract, signed by the teacher, she is entitled to ten days’ notice. We respectfully suggest that if you care to follow the precedent of certain high-school cases, you might let the teacher sign a contract for a second trial year. “ ‘James H. Vast Sickle, • “ ‘Superintendent of Instruction.’ ” The answer further alleges that at a meeting of the respondents on the 22nd day of December, 1909, the following action, among other things, was taken: “Ten Days’ Notice:—On report of the Superintendent, it was ordered that a certain teacher now completing her year as probationary teacher, be given ten days’ notice of cancellation of appointment, she being reported unsatisfactory.” The answer then alleges that the teacher referred to was the petitioner and that it was in pursuance of this order that ²⁶⁶ the cancellation notice of December 23, 1909, was sent to the relator by the Secretary of the respondents. To the answer the relator filed her demurrer, which was sustained by the Oourt. The respondents, upon leave being granted them, filed their amended answer, in which after adopting the original answer in full, alleged that by section 101 of the Oity Oode it is made the duty of the Superintendent and his assistants to ascertain the training, knowledge, aptness for teaching and character of every candidate for the place of teacher and to report to the respondents graded lists of those whom they deem qualified for appointment, from which graded lists all nominations for teachers shall be made by the Superintendent and his assistants to the respondents, and that by section 99 of the said Code it is provided that the respondents shall confirm or reject all nominations of teachers thus made to them by the Superintendent and his assistants.

That it was found by the respondents and the Superintendent and his assistants to be impossible to ascertain the aptness of the candidate for teaching by written examinations alone, but that this could only be surely ascertained by an inspection of the actual work of such candidates as teachers. Therefore it was resolved by the School Board in April, 1907: “That no candidate should be appointed a regular teacher in the public schools of Baltimore City whose aptness to teach had not first been tested by the Superintendent during a probationary period of twelve months prior to such appointment.” The answer then alleges that “since that time no candidate is, or has been, nominated to the School Board by the Superintendent or his assistants, for appointment as regular teacher, whose aptness to teach had not first been made manifest by actual work as a teacher during said probationary period;” that all candidates before entering upon their said probationary period are notified as the relator was in this case, the forms for notification and acceptance being the ²⁶⁷ same, and that it was pursuant to this rule adopted as afore- , said that the relator was appointed probationary teacher, subject to the terms and conditions given, which terms and conditions were accepted by her. The answer further alleges that she was never recommended to the School Board by the Superintendent or his assistants, for appointment as a regular teacher in the public schools of Baltimore City and was never so appointed. To this amended answer the relator also filed her demurrer and this too was sustained.

Whereupon the respondents declined to answer, and an order was accordingly passed granting the writ of mandamus asked for by the relator. It is from this order sustaining the demurrer to the respondents’ amended answer and granting the writ of mandamus as prayed, that this appeal is taken. It will thus be seen from what has been said that the relator was removed from her position by reason of her alleged failure to meet the requirements and conditions imposed upon her at the time of her appointment. It is of this removal that the relator complains, contending that she, under the provisions of the Code, notwithstanding her consent to the conditions imposed at the time of appointment, could not have been removed as teacher without charges being preferred against her and trial had thereon; and further contending that while the appointment was valid, the conditions imposed were void.

Section 99 of the City Code provides: “The members of the said Board (referring to the Board of School Commissioners) shall be chosen by the Mayor from among those he deems most capable of promoting the interest of public education by reason of their intelligence, character, education or business habits. * * * The said Board shall confirm or reject all nominations of teachers made to it, as hereinafter provided by the Superintendent of Public Instruction and his assistants. It shall not confirm the appointment of any ²⁶⁸ teacher whose name does not appear upon the graded list, hereinafter provided for. All officers, secretaries, clerks and . employees shall be appointed by said Board, and may be removed by it at pleasure, and any teacher may be removed by said Board on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Public Instruction after charg'es preferred and trial had.” Section 101 provides: “It shall be the duty of the Superintendent of Public Instruction and his Assistants, as examiners, to ascertain, by appropriate committees, appointed as