No. 13459 INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977

GRANT R. GALLUP, Plaintiff and Appellant,

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION of the State of Montana, Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District, Honorable Gordon R. Bennett, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Astle and Astle, Kalispell, Montana David Astle argued, Kalispell, Montana For Respondent : W. Corbin Howard, Helena, Montana For Amicus Curiae: Cannon and Gillespie, Helena, Montana Richard Gillespie argued, Helena, Montana

Submitted: April 18, 1977 Decided: 

### MAY

# -4

## lgn Filed: 

### MAY

. i 

### 917Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court, Lewis and Clark County,granting defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice. Several issues are presented by plaintiff Grant R. Gallup, but we find the controlling issue to be whether his rights and remedies in this matter were foreclosed by his failure to timely pursue proper legal remedies in the district court from a decision of the state superintendent affirming the termination of his tenure. Gallup in 1973was a tenured teacher of School District No. 

### 9,Glacier County, Montana, having taught there for 9 years. In September 1973, the board of trustees of the district dismissed him pursuant to section 75-6107,R.C.M. 1947,which provides for dismissal of a teacher during the contract term. Gallup appealed the decision to the superintendent of schools oiGlacier County,who, following a hearing, reversed the board. The board of trustees appealed that decision to the state superintendentwho upheld the decision of the county superintendent. That decisionwas appealed to the district court which reversed the decision of the state superintendent. Gallup appealed to this Court and in a decision dated December 21, 1976, the Court reversed the district court's judgment and affirmed that of the state superintendent of public instruction reinstatingGallup for the remainder

or his 1973-74contract. See: Board of Trustees of School District No. 

### 9,Glacier County v. Superintendent of Public Instruction, oL the State of Montana and Grant 

### R. Gallup, Mont

# . 9 

### 557 P.2d 1048, 

### 33 St.Rep. 1221.:hiYlarch 13, i914,when Gallup's case was stillbefore the Glacier County superintendent on the dismissal of September 1973, the board of trustees met for the purpose of renewing teachersr contracts for the coming 1974-75 school year. The board voted to terminate Gallup's tenured service atthe end of the 1973-74 school year pursuant to section 75-6103, R.C.M. 1947. We note that in September 1973, theboard terminated 

### all up's contract under section 75-6107, R.C.M. 1947. The March 13, 1974, action takenby theboard was under a different statute and during the pendency of the firstappeal. Atthispoint inthe case the board chose toterminate any future employment with Gallup, regardless of the outcome of the firstcase. This decisionwas communicated toGallup by letter datedMarch 19, 1974. On March 25, 1974, Gallup demanded reasons forhis termination and theboard gave eight reasons. Ata hearingbefore the board

on April 26, 1974, Gallup appeared with counsel but refused to testify. After he left, theboard heard evidence and terminated his services as a tenured teacher for the school year 1974-75. Thereafter Gallup appealed theboard's decision to the Glacier County superintendent of schools. Both parties appeared atthe hearing and stipulated that two questions should be considered and that the transcript of thehearingbefore the board of trusteeswould provide the relevant background. The county superintendent found the charges unsupported and ordered Gallup reinstated. The board appealed to the state superintendent, who reversed the county superintendent. The decision of the state superintendentwas dated November 14, 1975. No appeal was made to the district court untilMay 17, 1976. Section 75-5709, R.C.M. 1947, as amended by Sec. 1, Ch.300, L.1974, iscontrolling. It provides inpertinent part:'x 

### The decision of the superintendent of public instruction shallbe final, subject to the proper Legal remedies in the state courts. Suchproceedings shallbe commenced no later than sixty 

### (60) days after .-the date of the decision of the superintendent ofpublic

instruction." (Emphasis povided.) Lzr a recent case, Schweigertv. Board ofTrustees, 163 Mont. 

### 29, 515 P.2d 

### 85,this Court held that where a tenured teacher did not follow statutory procedure inmaking a written requestwithin ten days for a statement of reasons and a hearing, her rights under the statute expired and she was foreclosed from thereafter bringing suit challenging the decisionnot to
renew her contract. In the instant casemore than six months passed and Gallup cannot at this late date breathe life into his complaint. Having failed to pursue his statutory administrative remedies within the time allowed by law,Gallup's right to contest the terminationofhis employment as a tenured teacherwas at an end. The statutory time limitations are mandatory to provide for prompt resolution of teacher employment controversies in the public interest,aswell as the respective interests of the principals involved. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

We Concur: 

### I 

# u J- 

# 6*- Chief Justice