A TEACHER’S APPEAL.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 June 1922, Page 4

A TEACHER’S APPEAL.

THE CASE OF MISS PARK. POWERS OF THE MINISTER k SUPREME COURT HEARING By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The hearing of the case of Miss Park versus the Minister of Education was continued in the Supreme Court to-day. Miss .Jean Gladys Park was a teacher in the Carterton District High School. The Minister for Education, Christopher Jarnei Parr, proposed to hold an inquiry into certain things for which it was alleged Miss Park was responsible. Miss Park disputed the power of the Minister in the matter. Consequently, the court proceedings in which Miss Park is plaintiff and the Minister defendant. Sir John Findlay, K.C., briefly sketched the provisions of the various Education Acts and the regulations dealing with the issue of certificates. Counsel read to the Bench a number of cases where the teachers’ certificates had been cancelled by the Minister. He pointed'out that teachers of native schools, private schools, etc., held certificates of competency from the Minister, and these teachers were not subject to the jurisdiction of any Education Board. His Honor: “They do not requires certificates.” Sir John Findlay: “No, but it is a certificate of qualification.” Proceeding, counsel submitted that in a matter of this sort the Court had no jurisdiction over the Minister, and he quoted authorities in support of his contention. The main point in the present case was this: “We want to claim the right of exercising control over these certificates.” His Honor: “The right of appeal given teachers is essentially different from the right of appeal given to civil servants. The right of appeal is only the right of appeal against dismissal or the termination of their services.” Mr. M. Myers: “There is grading of A teachers from time to time.” ’ His Honor: “Supposing a teacher’s certificate is cancelled, that would not cancel his appointment. If his certificate is cancelled, does he lose his position?” Mr. Myers: “That is a question which, 1 confess, I am not prepared to answer.” His Honor: “It is a question which I have to answer.” Mr. Myers: “Not necessarily. He undoubtedly is prejudiced in his position, and supposing he is entitled to hold his position, it is quite clear he could not be promoted.” His Honor: “No, he cannot be promoted.” Mr. Myers then went on to deal with the question asked by the Court with respect to the granting of prohibition or an injunction against something which, if done, would be futile. The Minister, continued counsel, claimed power to so deal with a certificate as to curtail the rights which its possession gave. If that could not be substantiated, it was submitted, quite apart from prohibition, that an injunction would be. His Honor: “A prima facie injunction is against a wrong which is threatened. This is not a threatened wrong. Would a teacher have the right of action if a thing were done?” i Mr. Myers: “For damages?” ' His Honor: “Yes.” Mr. Myers submitted there would be the right of action for damages if the Minister had not the power which he claimed. Mr. Myers submitted that a number of the affidavits filed on behalf of the Minister were not relevant to the question of predetermination or bias. If the Minister could proceed with the inquiry and had power to cancel or suspend a certificate, the matters referred to in the affidavits would have to be gone into by tMF person holding the inquiry. His Honor said he was not going into those matters, except in so far as necessary to understand the acts of the Minister. He was not going into the merits of the case. At Sir John Findlay’s request, the Judge agreed to hear him before giving his final decision on the point. Counsel addressed the court at length, oir John Findlay contending that the Minister was quite within his rights. Sir John made an application for permiaaion to read the affidavits made regarding the complaints made against Miss Farit butt,eclined ‘o receive them. The Judge reserved his decision.