Opinion ID: 1349035
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: mandamus as a remedy

Text: In regard to the first certified question, the appellee maintains that a writ of mandamus lies in this case because the appellants have failed to discharge a nondiscretionary duty, specifically, granting the appellee a leave of absence to run for office with a guaranteed reinstatement to full benefits and rank. The appellee also asserts that in election proceedings, this Court has somewhat relaxed the procedural rigor required in an ordinary mandamus case, and that accordingly, mandamus is proper in the case now before us. [5] We do not believe mandamus lies in this case. The law in this State is well settled as to when mandamus lies: A writ of mandamus will not issue unless three elements coexist(1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the relief sought; (2) a legal duty on the part of the respondent to do the thing which the petitioner seeks to compel; and (3) the absence of another adequate remedy. Syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. Kucera v. City of Wheeling, 153 W.Va. 538, 170 S.E.2d 367 (1969); accord, syl. pt. 2, United Mine Workers v. Faerber, ___ W.Va. ___, 365 S.E.2d 345 (1986); syl. pt. 1, Rogers v. Hechler, ___ W.Va. ___, 348 S.E.2d 299 (1986); syl. pt. 3, Craigo v. Hey, ___ W.Va. ___, 345 S.E.2d 814 (1986); syl. pt. 3, Kimes v. Bechtold, ___ W.Va. ___, 342 S.E.2d 147 (1986) (and cases collected at 152). Based upon the foregoing, we are of the opinion that a writ of mandamus does not lie in the case now before us. In this case, the appellants had no clear legal duty to grant the leave of absence requested by the appellee. To the contrary, as discussed in section III of this opinion, such action would have been improper. Moreover, this Court has repeatedly held that [a] peremptory writ of mandamus will issue to require the discharge by a public official of a non-discretionary duty. Syl. pt. 4, Glover v. Sims, 121 W.Va. 407, 3 S.E.2d 612 (1939); see also syl. pt. 4, Rogers v. Hechler, ___ W.Va. ___, 348 S.E.2d 299 (1986); Allen v. West Virginia Human Rights Commission, ___ W.Va. ___, ___ n. 10, 324 S.E.2d 99, 107 n. 10 (1984). Again, based upon our discussion supra in section III of this opinion, the decision as to whether the appellants should grant the appellee the desired leave of absence was not nondiscretionary, but pursuant to W.Va.Code, 7-14-15(a) [1971], was statutorily prohibited. Having answered the certified questions, we dismiss this case from the docket of this Court. Certified questions answered.