Appeal from the Order of the State Civil Service Commission, in the case of Andrew Shepta v. Board of Probation and Parole, No. 7660.
Andrew Shepta, petitioner, for himself.
Timothy P. Wile, Assistant Chief Counsel, with him, Robert A. Greevy, Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Craig and Palladino, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.
[ 124 Pa. Commw. Page 67]
Andrew Shepta appeals an order by the State Civil Service Commission dismissing his appeal from the nonselection of him for promotion by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (appointing authority) to the position of Parole Hearing Officer.
The undisputed facts are that Shepta applied for a vacant position as a parole hearing officer. A letter dated June 29, 1987, written by Shepta to the commission, indicates that he became aware of his nonselection on June 15, 1987; that letter also requested information on the applicant-evaluation process. On July 2, 1987, Shepta wrote to the personnel director of the appointing authority inquiring further into the selection process.
After an extensive series of written and oral exchanges between Shepta and both the commission and the appointing authority, Shepta filed an appeal request with the commission on September 1, 1987. He alleged that he had been discriminated against because of his age (62), his physical condition (neck and back injuries) and because he is not black.
The appointing authority submitted a motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely. After the commission denied the motion, the appointing authority entered a motion for certification of interlocutory order and stay. The commission
[ 124 Pa. Commw. Page 68]
denied that motion, but noted that "our ruling denying your motion does not bar you from again raising the matter at hearing and presenting evidence in support of your position." Finally, this court denied (1) the appointing authority's petition for review from an order of the commission refusing to amend its order to include interlocutory review language, and (2) its application for stay of proceedings before the commission. No. 218 C.D. 1988. The commission held a hearing on February 3, 1988, and by a two-to-one vote, dismissed the appeal because Shepta had not filed his appeal within the twenty-day period established under section 951(b) of the Civil Service Act (Act), Act of August 5, 1941, P.L. 752, as amended, 71 P.S. § 741.951(b).*fn1
Shepta now comes before this court contending that he filed his appeal with the commission in timely fashion. In support of this contention, Shepta asserts that, because he has not received any written notice of his nonselection, the twenty-day appeal period has yet to commence. Additionally, Shepta argues that the commission is being overly technical in its interpretation of procedures when ...