Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): interest is suitably furthered by differential treatment. Ibid. In the present case we conclude that the classifi cation effected under section 100(b) does not violate the Federal or State constitution. By withholding the right of collective bargaining, section 100(b) is consistent with section 100(a)’s mandate to the Attorney General to “organize the ... division ... as he may determine to be necessary for efficient and effective operation and ... [to] assign to the division such employees in the Department of Law and Public Safety as may be necessar , 94 N.J. 9, 462 A.2d 137 (1983) (ruling that teacher’s claim of reverse discrimination was grievable, though not subject to binding arbitration); Rutgers v. Council of AAUP Chapters, 256 N.J.Super. 104, 606 A.2d 822 (App.Div.1992) (<HOLDING>), affirmed o.b. 131 N.J. 118, 618 A.2d 853 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the parole commission is required to state reasons for its finding that an inmate continues to be a poor candidate for parole release (B) recognizing exception to application requirement when employer does not notify employees of available promotion and does not provide formal mechanism for expressing interest in promotion (C) holding that a proposal requiring reasons for rejection of candidate for reappointment or promotion notice of actual vote and permitting candidate to submit additional information were subject to mandatory negotiation (D) holding that a fair referendum assuring the equal right to vote under  101a1 includes the right of members to have the vote scheduled at a time when they can exercise their vote and the right to be free from intimidation or fear of reprisal (E) holding that the right to vote is fundamental
Output (English): holding that the parole commission is required to state reasons for its finding that an inmate continues to be a poor candidate for parole release