Opinion ID: 1787114
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether circuit court had jurisdiction to review the PARB's termination decision.

Text: ¶ 20. Because Smith did not exhaust his administrative remedies, by following statutory appeal procedures, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to review the University's employment decision. This Court has previously held that failure to post the required appeal bond under § 11-51-93 is a jurisdictional issue. Mississippi State Pers. Bd. v. Armstrong, 454 So.2d 912, 914-15 (Miss.1984). In Armstrong, the court addressed the statutory bond requirements, (specifically the requirements in § 11-51-95), and stated that: As stated, we hold that the required supersedeas bond is jurisdictional, and the appeal is not perfected until the bond is approved by the circuit judge and filed. Armstrong, 454 So.2d at 914-15 (citing Phillips Constr. Co. v. Mississippi State Highway Comm'n, 420 So.2d 1374 (Miss. 1982)); see also Grand Gulf Military Monument Comm'n v. Cox, 492 So.2d 287 (Miss.1986) (holding that circuit court lacked jurisdiction over matter because terminated employee failed to file petition required by statute). Again, in Bertucci v. Mississippi Dep't of Corrs., 597 So.2d 643 (Miss.1992), this Court required strict compliance with the appeal provisions for a writ of certiorari by stating that [w]e decline to ignore statutory requisites and accept that a brief is in substantial compliance with § 11-51-93. We are not willing to accept anything less than full compliance with all essentials within the time allowed.... Id. at 646-47. As the University correctly points out, Smith failed to submit a petition supported by an affidavit and post a bond, with security, within six months of the decision of the PARB per the requirements of § 11-51-95. Smith's failure to perfect his appeal under § 11-51-95 deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction to review the University's decision to terminate Smith, therefore the court's dismissal of Smith's claims was proper.