A TEACHER’S APPEAL.

Taranaki Daily News, 25 May 1922, Page 4

A TEACHER’S APPEAL.

AGAINST MINISTER’S ACTION? THE CASE GF MIS'S PARK. Py Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, May 24. >. Tn the Supreme Court to-day, beford Mr. Justice Salmond, argument is being heard in the case Jean Gladys Park, of Carterton, school teHcher, against Christopher James Parr, Minister of Education, and Arthur D. Thomson, retired Assistant Public Service Commissioner. The Minister had instructed Mr. Thomson to hold an inquiry into statements alleged to have been made byplaintiff in connection with her school duties. On behalf of plaintiff it is claimed that the regulation under which the Minister was proposing to cancel or suspend the license of plaintiff was ultra vires, and that, if the regulation was valid, the Minister had shown such bias as to disentitle him to exercise the disi cretion conferred upon him by the regu« lation. 2 Mr. Myers is for plaintiff and tne Solicitor-General, with him Sir Joint Findlay and Mr. Hart, Carterton, defendants. " Wellington, Last Night. The statement of claim, after setting forth the patriculars of the case,, concluded with the claim that a w-srit be issued by the Court prohibiting the defendants from holding the inquiry directed by the Minister, or, in the alternative, that a writ of injunction ba issued restraining the defendants from proceeding with the inquiry, and (restraining the Minister from cancelling the plaintiff’s certificates, or, in a fur« ther alternative, that a writ of certiorari be issued commanding the defendants to send to the Court a direction, or other warrant or authority, for the holding of the said inquiry. Mr. Myers, in opening for the plain* tiff, said a mass of affidavits had been med, but ne noped tne court would not have to read many of them, and he J suggested that as much, of the contente was irrelevant, he only proposed at present to deal with th® general question, unless the matter of the certiaraxt arose.

The Judge asserted that the facta should be left alone as much, as possible. Mr. x.±yers eaid tne question of law involved was very serious, as, if the other side’s view was sound, every teacher was absolutely in the power of the Minister for Education of the day. He then proceeded to develop hia argument, contending that teachers were not employees of the Minister, but of the Education Board. The Statute gave them security of tenure and the right of appeal in the event of dismissal. The Minister claimed the right to cancel the certificate of any teacher, and that there was no appeal. He contended that if the regulation was read literally it was in conflict with the Statute, or, at all events, with the plain intention of the legislature. The Solicitor-General (Mr. MacGregor), for the defendant, claimed thatj) power was given to issue a certificate which implied the power to cancel it, and the regulation was, therefore, valid. The Judge remarked that the Statute gave the right of appeal, and claimed that the protection was only against the Education Board, and not against the Minister. Mr. MacGregor reiterated that if the department had the right to issue certificates it must have the corresponding right to withdraw them. Sir John Findlay contended that the Minister had a perfect right to hold an inquiry and cancel a certificate. He quoted a case where a teacher was found guilty of a crimina l act: the board merely accepted the resignation and the Minister cancelled the certificate. In the interests of the public the Minister should have such power and it was evident that the Act intended that the Minister should be able to exercise that power.

Mr. Myers contended it was highly dangerous for a Minister to be able to : cancel certificates at will, as there

would be no security of tenure. The Teachers’ Institute knew of no case where the Minister had evercised the power given by the Act. The case is not finished.