Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Holub v. Civil Service Commission of

Decided: January 8, 1964.

HOLUB
v.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF BALTIMORE CITY, ET AL.



Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City; Cullen, J.

Henderson, Hammond, Horney, Marbury and Sybert, JJ. Hammond, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Hammond

As of August 31, 1959, ostensibly pursuant to Code (1957), Art. 41, Sec. 238 (The Maryland Civil Defense Act), the Governor appointed the appellant to the post of Deputy Director of Civil Defense for the City of Baltimore and issued him a commission. Sec. 238 made no mention of the office of Deputy Director. The only offices therein directed to be filled by the Governor were Directors and Alternate Directors.

On September 18, 1959, the Director of the Civil Defense Organization of Baltimore requested the Board of Estimates to fill a vacancy in the position of Deputy Director and suggested the appellant, Holub. The Board appointed Holub on September 23 and he entered upon his duties.

In 1960 the Federal Congress enacted legislation which provided for contributions of money to State and local civil defense organizations on conditions, including the requirements of uniformity of plans and procedures and the placing of all employees, other than Directors, in an approved merit system.

The City Solicitor of Baltimore, on January 31, 1961, ruled, contrary to a prior opinion, that employees of the Civil Defense Organization of Baltimore were City employees and properly subject to merit system classification by the Civil Service Commission of the City. He held further that the position of Alternate Director, provided for by Sec. 238 of Art. 41 of the Code,

was not subject to classification and, since Holub was in fact the Alternate Director appointed by the Governor he could not be put in the merit system.

In an opinion given on March 6, 1961, the Attorney General of Maryland agreed with the City Solicitor that the Alternate Director was not subject to classification in the merit system of Baltimore but added that the position of Deputy Director and the office of Alternate Director are different and that the same person could hold both the paid position of Deputy (being within the merit system as to that position), and the unpaid office of Alternate Director (which would not be subject to civil service classification).

The Governor thereupon, on March 10, 1961, reissued a commission to Holub naming him Alternate Director, effective as of August 31, 1959, the date of his original ineffective appointment.

The Civil Service Commission of Baltimore then established job descriptions, titles, classification and salary schedules for Civil Defense employees of the City which met the Federal standards, and prepared examinations for each of the positions classified. In furtherance of the aim of uniformity, the name of the position of Deputy Director was changed to Assistant Director.

Appellant took the civil service examination for Assistant Director. As an incumbent he was not required to compete with other applicants for the position or to have the minimum qualifications required of others. If he made a passing mark he automatically retained the position. Holub failed the examination and then, for the first time, contended he was not a City employee, was not subject to civil service classification, and that the examination was unfair and illegal, and brought suit to establish his points. On March 28, 1963, Judge Cullen dismissed Holub's petition for mandamus and this appeal followed.

Holub's contention in this Court essentially is that he was legally the Alternate Director and the attempts by Baltimore officials to name him and classify him as Deputy Director or Assistant ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.