Court Opinion

ID: 9753271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:05:54.439533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:33.007868
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION BY
Judge McCullough.
I concur in the result reached by the Majority. I write separately merely to clarify why I believe the Majority reached the correct result and properly distinguished this matter from our Supreme Court’s decision in McGrath v. Staisey, 433 Pa. 8, 249 A.2d 280 (1968).
*480The key distinguishing factor between McGrath and the cases relied on by the Majority, namely Coles v. Judd, 7 Pa.Cmwlth. 90, 298 A.2d 687 (1973), and Fraternal Order of Police, Lower Merion Police, Lodge 28 v. Township of Lower Merion, 416 F.Supp. 65 (E.D.Pa.1976), was the language of the statutory provisions at issue in each of those cases. McGrath involved sections 1512 and 1516 of the Second Class County Code, Act of February 10, 1970, P.L. 5, as amended, 16 P.S. §§ 4512, 4516, which provided as follows:
§ 4512. Manner of Making Appointments — Every position of employment, except that of superintendent of police or equivalent official, unless filled by promotion or reinstatement, shall be filled only in the following manner: The commission shall certify for each existing vacancy, from the eligible list, the names of three persons thereon, who have received the highest average in the last preceding examination held within a period of two years next preceding the date of the request for such eligibles. The county commissioners shall thereupon, with sole reference to the merits and fitness of the candidates, make an appointment from the three names certified ....
§ 4516. Promotions — Promotions shall be based on merit, to be ascertained by written examinations to be prescribed by the board of county commissioners and held under the supervision of the commission. All examinations for promotions shall be practical in character and such as will fairly test the merit and fitness of the persons seeking promotion.
(Emphasis added.) In McGrath, our Supreme Court described section 1512 as the “original appointment provision.” McGrath, 433 Pa. at 11, 249 A.2d at 281. By its very terms, this section did not apply to promotions. Hence, the Court in McGrath, relying on section 1516, held that merit was the sole criterion for promotion and that the person with the highest score on the examination must be promoted first.
Coles involved sections 1184 and 1888 of the Borough Code, Act of February 1, 1966, P.L. (1965), as amended, 53 P.S. §§ 46184, 46188, which provided as follows:
§ 46184. Manner of filling appointments — Every position or employment in the police force or as paid operators of fire apparatus, except that of chief of police or chief of the fire department, or equivalent, shall be filled only in the following manner: the council shall notify the commission of any vacancy which is to be filled and shall request the certification of a list of eligibles. The commission shall certify for each existing vacancy from the eligible list, the names of three persons ... who have received the highest average. The council shall thereupon, with sole reference to the merits and fitness of the candidates, make an appointment from the three names certified....
§ 46188. Promotions — Promotions shall be based on merit to be ascertained by examinations to be prescribed by the commission. All questions relative to promotions shall be practical in character and such as will fairly test the merit and fitness of persons seeking promotion.
The council shall have power to determine in each instance whether an increase in salary shall constitute a promotion.
This Court in Coles held that the lack of the excluding language “unless filled by promotion” as contained in section 1512 of the Second Class County Code distinguished that case from McGrath, that the *481borough council was not restricted to filling promotions based only on the highest test score, and that the borough council could choose a candidate to promote from a list of three eligible persons certified by the local civil service commission.1
Township of Lower Merion involved sections 638 and 642 of The First Class Township Code, Act of June 24, 1931, P.L. 1206, as amended, 53 P.S. §§ 55638, 55642, which provided as follows:
§ 55638. Manner of filling appointments — Every position or employment in the police force or as paid operators of fire apparatus, except that of chief of police or chief of the fire department or equivalent shall be filled only in the following manner: the township commissioners shall notify the commission of any vacancy which is to be filled and shall request the certification of a list of eligibles. The commission shall certify for each existing vacancy from the eligible list the names of three persons thereon who have received the highest average. The township commissioners shall, thereupon, with sole reference to the merits and fitness of the candidates, make an appointment from the three names certified....
§ 55642. Promotions — Promotions shall be based on merits to be ascertained by examinations to be prescribed by the commission. All questions relative to promotions shall be practical in character and such as will fairly test the merit and fitness of persons seeking promotion.
The Court in Township of Loiver Merion, citing our previous decision in Coles, held that The First Class Township Code must be read to allow the commission to fill a promotion from the three highest eligible scorers as outlined in section 638.
The present case also involves sections 638 and 642 of The First Class Township Code. Because The First Class Township Code does not contain the exclusionary language found in sections 1512 of the Second Class County Code, the Majority properly relied upon Coles and Township of Lower Merion in distinguishing the present matter from McGrath.

. The first sentence of section 1184 of the Borough Code was amended in 1986 to read as follows:
Every original position or employment in the police force or as paid operators of fire apparatus, except that of chief of police or chief of the fire department, or equivalent, shall be filled only in the following manner ....
(Emphasis added.) This Court has since interpreted this provision to exclude promotions, thereby adopting the reasoning of our Supreme Court in McGrath. See Borough of Wilkinsburg v. Colella, 961 A.2d 265 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008), appeal denied, 601 Pa. 703, 973 A.2d 1007 (2009).