Case Title: BD. OF TRUSTEES, ETC. v. State Ex Rel. Russell

Citation: 219 N.E.2d 886, 247 Ind. 570

Docket Number: 30,856

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 1966-09-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
247 Ind. 570 (1966)
219 N.E.2d 886
BD. OF TRUSTEES, POLICE PENSION FUND, CITY OF TERRE HAUTE, INDIANA, ET AL.
v.
STATE OF INDIANA EX REL. RUSSELL.
No. 30,856.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed September 28, 1966.
Mann, Mann, Chaney, Johnson & Hicks, and Hansford Mann, of Terre Haute, for appellants.
N. George Nasser, of Terre Haute, for appellee.
MYERS, J.
This was an action based upon a complaint for mandate by relator Carl M. Russell ex rel. the State of Indiana against the Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund of the City of Terre Haute (hereinafter referred to as the Board) and the individual members thereof to mandate the *571 Board to order relator to appear before an examining physician appointed by the Board for the purpose of undergoing a physical examination as required by law and to delete a requirement adopted by the Board that any one becoming a member of the Police Pension Fund must be at least five feet nine inches in height. An answer in two paragraphs was filed by respondents setting up the requirement of the Board as an affirmative defense. A reply was filed by relator which closed the issues. Trial was held by the Hon. Joe W. Lowdermilk, as Special Judge, without the intervention of a jury. A stipulation was agreed upon by all the parties as comprising all the evidence in the cause, and it was introduced as such. Omitting formal parts, it reads as follows:
Thereafter a decree was entered which, omitting formal parts, reads as follows:
Motion for new trial was filed based upon the ground that the decision of the court was contrary to law which was overruled, and this appeal followed. Appellants assign as error the overruling of the motion for new trial.
It is argued by appellants that the decision is contrary to law because it constitutes an invasion by the trial court *574 of the exclusive province of the Board of Trustees to determine just what physical requirements should be passed by applicants to the police force and Pension Fund. In support of their contention, they cite Burns' Ind. Stat., § 48-6407, 1963 Replacement, which says in pertinent part:
Also cited are subsequent sections of the statute which refer to police officers who were in active service at the time of passage of the act who (1) belonged to the Pension Fund (Burns', § 48-6407), and those who (2) did not belong at the time of passage of the act (Burns', § 48-6408). The former were required to have previously passed physical examination required by the Board of Trustees, and the latter were required to successfully pass such physical examination as required by the Board before they were entitled to benefits.
Appellants say in their brief (pp. 34-35):
It is then argued that large men make better policemen than small men, because their size enables them to "enter rough saloons and remove troublemakers without incident; whereas smaller men would be set upon and mauled without hesitation;" that the "policeman who lacks sufficient size is going to get hurt if he attempts to physically handle these every day situations;" that "it requires no genius to realize that big men are seldom chosen as victims by bullies."
Appellants say that these are facts which the Pension Board knows and should consider; that the Board of Trustees is required to set up the requirement of a physical examination, *575 and has some discretion in so doing; that a requirement that a policeman be five feet nine inches in height is not a gross abuse of that discretion.
We agree with appellants when they state that the purpose of the physical examination is to place men on the police force with the highest standards of health and physical ability. We do not agree to their argument that big men make better policemen than little men. There are many men in the sports field, such as lightweight boxing, wrestling, baseball and football, who are less than five feet nine inches in height who could clean a saloon of its drunks and troublemakers without injury to themselves, and who would make excellent bodyguards for men taller than they are. It is not the height that counts; it is the physical condition, strength and health of the individual, whatever his size.
As far as we are able to determine from the record herein, the physical examination required by the Board consisted of an examination of the applicant by a physician in regard to his physical condition. The word "physical" has been stated to mean:
The case of State ex rel. Bolden v. Johnstone (1937), 211 Ind. 281, 6 N.E.2d 706, pertained to Section 2, Chapter 51, of the Acts of 1925, page 167; Burns' Ind. Stat., § 48-6402 (Third). This particular section was deleted by the Acts of 1941, Chapter 188, Section 2, page 565. It provided for a *576 regular five-year examination for police officers by a police surgeon or other surgeon appointed by the Board of Trustees of the Pension Fund. If found in good health, mentally and physically, the police officer and his family were entitled to share in the benefits provided. The police officer was duly examined by a regular police physician who found him in good health, both mentally and physically. The physician certified thereto, but his certificate never reached the Board. The officer brought an action in mandate against the Board. The trial court denied the petition on the ground that the officer's name did not appear among the records of the Board as one who had taken the required examination. This court reversed on the basis that if, in fact, the examination had been taken and passed, it was not up to the officer to see to it that the certificate should be received by the Board. In so doing, this court said (at page 287 of 211 Ind., at page 709 of 6 N.E.2d):
The name of the police applicant in the case at bar was presented to the Board of Trustees in order to take the physical examination. This was denied him by a majority of the Board because he was not five feet nine inches in height. The Board had passed this height requirement in 1962. It operated as a condition precedent for any one who applied to be a member of the police force. We do not find that the Board had any express or implied power to create such a condition precedent to the taking of a physical examination.
It is a general rule that any administrative tribunal is governed by the powers, both express and implied, which are granted it by the Legislature in the enactment of the statute creating it. 1 Am.Jur.2d, Administrative Law, §§ 69-70, pp. 864-866. The powers granted the Board of Trustees are set forth in Burns' Ann. Stat., § 48-6401, 1963 Replacement, the pertinent part of which reads as follows:
In no way can we read in this sentence that the Board is empowered to do anything other than to arrange for the collection, preservation and disbursement of pension monies and to take care of other matters connected with the proper execution of the act. This does not include Burns' Ind. Stat., § 48-6407, 1963 Replacement, supra, a different act of the General Assembly, which refers to the appointment, reappointment and age limit of members of the force. In this section the only power granted to the Board is to require a physical examination of persons appointed or reappointed to the police force. The only discretion which the Board may have is in the establishment of the type of physical examination required by the statute. It has no authority to create a system of weights and measures to take place prior to such physical examination affecting those who wish to become members of the police force.
It is only the results of the physical examination which determine whether an applicant may become a member of the police force. If he is found in good health, he is within the provisions of the statute. State ex rel. Bolden v. Johnstone (1937), 211 Ind. 281, 6 N.E.2d 706, supra. The height of an applicant and other similar matters such as his size and weight, could be considered by the examining physician as relating to his health.
In attempting to establish a standard which had to be met by an applicant before he became entitled to a physical examination, the Board of Trustees exceeded its powers. It had no discretion therein, so mandate will lie. State ex rel. Donahue v. Bd. of Tr. Firemen's Pen. F. (1937), *578 211 Ind. 643, 7 N.E.2d 196. The only manner in which such a standard could be established would be by action of the General Assembly similar to what it has already done in creating an age limit for police officers. See Burns' Ind. Stat. § 48-6407, 1963 Replacement, supra.
Appellants state that the application form for the Indiana State Police advises applicants that they must be at least five feet nine inches in height, and that "this does not mean 5' 8 15/16"." The powers granted to the Superintendent of the State Police with the approval of the State Police Board in connection with applications for service as State Troopers are very broad and different from those considered herein. He has powers to set standards for qualifications which are in conformity with standards adopted in other states, dominions and provinces. This could include the height of the applicant. Burns' Ind. Stat., § 47-848, 1965 Replacement. The manner of selection of State Troopers cannot be compared to that of city police officers.
Appellants attempt to insert into the argument the fact that the trial court's decree of physical examination be backdated as of July 16, 1963, claiming that this would circumvent the law prohibiting appointment to the police force of persons over thirty-five years of age. Burns' Ind. Stat., § 48-6407, 1963 Replacement, supra. A copy of relator's birth certificate was placed in the brief to show he was over thirty-five at the time appellants' brief was filed, and still had not been appointed to the force.
This case was tried on a stipulation of facts. Not having been set aside or withdrawn, it is conclusive upon the parties and the court. Bruggner v. Shaffer (1965), 138 Ind. App. 183, 210 N.E.2d 439. No mention was made or included in the stipulation or in the record herein concerning the above contention. Therefore, we shall not consider it.
Judgment affirmed.
*579 Rakestraw, C.J., and Arterburn, J., concur. Jackson, J., concurs in result. Achor, J., not participating.
NOTE.  Reported in 219 N.E.2d 886.