Concerning using a “one name” eligible list
Matter of Horowitz, 70 AD2d 854
By Executive Order, the employer followed a “rule of one” in appointment from the appropriate eligible list instead of the more common “rule of three”.
After the agency obtained an “exemption” from the Executive Order which would have otherwise required the only passed candidate to be appointed, it told the eligible that he was not to be appointed because “he was not competent to perform the work demanded by the higher title position”.
The agency then appointed two employees who had taken but failed the test to the higher title provisionally.
As the reason for non-appointment was based essentially on alleged lack of competency, under the facts of this case the Court held that such a “passing over” stigmatized the employee and required a hearing in accordance with due process so that the candidate could be heard to refute the “charge of incompetence”.
