Jeffrey F. Bahls, for petitioner.
Joseph S. Rengert, with him, Francis X. O'Brien, Jr., for respondent.
Judges Rogers, Craig and Colins, sitting as a panel of three. President Judge Crumlish, Jr. and Judges Rogers, Williams, Jr., Craig, MacPhail, Barry and Colins. Opinion by Judge Rogers. Dissenting Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr.
[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 288]
By order dated March 6, 1984, a panel of this court vacated orders of the Background Investigation Screening Board of the Pennsylvania State Police permanently disqualifying the petitioner, Richard W. Henry, for employment as a state police officer. We directed the Screening Board to conduct a hearing into the asserted grounds for Henry's disqualification.
[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 289]
Our order and the opinion accompanying it are reported as Henry v. Pennsylvania State Police, 80 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 595, 471 A.2d 1343 (1984).
On the application of the Pennsylvania State Police, we granted reargument.*fn1
We have concluded that our order of March 6, 1984, should not be disturbed. We here extend the opinion accompanying the order, principally in order to make clear that it should not be supposed that we have held that all applicants for state or other public employment have personal or property rights in the positions sought, to the end that they may appeal rejections as adjudications pursuant to 2 Pa. C.S. § 101-754. This case concerns only the procedures of the Pennsylvania State Police in the hiring of cadets for
[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 290]
State Police Academy classes and the application of those procedures to the circumstances of the petitioner, Richard W. Henry.
By a consent decree of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered in June, 1974, the Pennsylvania State Police became bound to hire Police Academy Cadets in accordance with procedures set out in the decree. Although these procedures are called "interim standards" and seem to have been intended for later replacement by other tests and criteria to be developed by the State Police and approved by the court, the procedures laid down in the decree were in use when the petitioner applied in November, 1982. These procedures and the petitioner's performance in pursuance of his candidacy for appointment as a cadet were as follows: a written examination was administered in which the petitioner scored in the 98th percentile of applicants; a physical examination and an oral interview were given which the petitioner successfully completed. The petitioner was notified that his name was to be placed on the list of qualified candidates. The next and, if successfully completed, the final procedure was that of investigation ...