Helen Ajibade, CSC Docket No. 2022-306

BackgroundHelen Ajibade appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services that found that she did not meet the experience requirements for the open competitive examination for Program Specialist 2 (M0033C), Jersey City.

The subject promotional examination had a closing date of February 22, 2021 and was open to residents of Jersey City and New Jersey who met the announced requirements. These requirements included graduation from an accredited college or university with a Bachelor’s degree, and two years of experience in the planning, monitoring, coordinating, implementing, modifying and/or evaluating agency programs and services. Applicants who did not meet the educational requirement could substitute additional experience as described on a year-for-year basis with thirty semester hour credits being equal to one year of experience. The appellant was found to be below minimum requirements in experience. There are eight candidates on the eligible list, which has been certified once, but no appointments have yet been made.

On her application and resume, the appellant indicated that she possessed a Bachelor’s degree, and therefore, she needs to possess two years of applicable experience. She listed five positions on her application and resume: 1) Assistant Secretary with East Orange Board of Education from January 2019 to the closing date, February 2021; 2) Assistant Teacher with East Orange Board of Education from January 2019 to December 2019; 3) Instructional Assistant with East Orange Community Charter School from September 2007 to January 2019; 4) Assistant Accountant in Nigeria from September 1995 to March 2003; and 5) Accounts

Payable Specialist/Claims Processer in Nigeria from November 1987 to September 1995. None of her experience was accepted and she was found to be lacking two years of qualifying experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant argues that she was eligible for an examination for the same title which closed in May 2019, and her name appeared on an eligible list. She argues that the experience requirements have remained the same, and she should be eligible for this examination.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.3(b) provides that applicants shall meet all requirements specified in the open competitive examination announcement by the closing date.

AnalysisThe appellant claims that she accrued applicable experience in the titles Assistant Secretary, Assistant Teacher, Instructional Assistant, Assistant Accountant and Accounts Payable Specialist/Claims Processer. The duties for each position do not have, as the primary focus, planning, monitoring, coordinating, implementing, modifying and/or evaluating agency programs and services. Rather, the appellant performed work within the parameters of a program. For example, in a Charter School, she was performing secretarial and clerical duties in one position, assisting with teaching in another position, and assisting with a summer camp program in a third position. Each of these positions has duties which are not planning, monitoring, coordinating, implementing, modifying and/or evaluating varios programs and services, but the appellant performed the services rendered by the agency or assisted others in doing so. Experience in the remaining titles is bookkeeping in nature and is not applicable. The appellant lacks two years of qualifying experience.

As to the appellant’s admittance to a prior examination for this title, it is noted that each examination is separate. The fact that the appellant was accepted for a prior examination with the same requirements does not preclude Agency Services from performing its function of evaluating an applicant’s experience for a subsequent examination and to do otherwise might give an undeserved preference, possibly ousting a fully-qualified applicant from consideration for the position. The appellant’s eligibility for prior examinations has no bearing on her eligibility for the subject examination. Eligibility is established based on information on the application. See In the Matter of Charles Klingberg (Merit System Board, decided March 28, 2001). If the appellant was admitted in error to a prior examination, this does not provide her with entitlement to eligibility in the instant matter. No vested or other rights are accorded by an administrative error. See Cipriano v. Department of Civil Service, 151 N.J. Super. 86 (App. Div. 1977); O’Malley v. Department of Energy, 109 N.J. 309 (1987); HIP of New Jersey v. New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance, 309 N.J. Super. 538 (App. Div. 1998).

An independent review of all material presented indicates that the decision of Agency Services that the appellant did not meet the announced requirements for eligibility by the closing date is amply supported by the record. The appellant provides no basis to disturb this decision. Thus, the appellant has failed to support her burden of proof in this matter.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be denied.

ClosingThis is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in a judicial forum.