Appeals, Nos. 27 and 28, March T., 1962, from decree of Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, Sept. T., 1960, Nos. 155 and 156, in cases of Tony Tassone, Jr. v. School District of Redstone Township, and Leonard Golembiewski v. Same. Decree reversed.
Fred C. Adams, with him Ira B. Coldren, Jr., for appellants.
A. J. Kuzdenyi, for school district, appellee.
Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen and O'brien, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE COHEN
Appellants are professional employees of appellee school district. Tassone had held the position of Assistant Supervisory Principal and Golembiewski of Principal in the school system. These positions were abolished by appellee school district at a meeting of the school board, and Tassone was assigned as a teacher in the high school at a reduced salary while Golembiewski was also assigned as a teacher of classes in the high school but without any diminution in compensation.
Subsequently, a public hearing was held by the board with regard to the abolition of the positions formerly held by appellants, after which the board passed a resolution sustaining its previous action.
Appellants appealed from this ruling to the Commonwealth Superintendent of Public Instruction who reversed the action of the school district and reinstated them to their former positions. The school district appealed from said order of reinstatement to the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County and requested a hearing de novo. The court granted the petition and a hearing de novo was held for both appellants at the same time and testimony was taken relative to both cases. The hearing judge reversed the order of the
superintendent and upheld the school district's demotion of appellants. This action was affirmed by the court en banc. The instant appeal followed.
The lower court must be reversed.
On appeal by a school district from a ruling of the Superintendent of Public Instruction reversing its action, a court of common pleas should look to see only if there was a manifest abuse of discretion or an error of law on the part of the superintendent. The court below exceeded these bounds and took it upon ...