213 Minn. at 589, 7 N.W.2d at 564. See also Roseville Educ. Ass'n v. Independent School Dist. No. 623, 391 N.W.2d 846, 852 (Minn. 1986); State ex rel. Haak v. Board of Educ. of Indep. School Dist. No. 625, St. Paul, 367 N.W.2d 461, 466-68 (Minn. 1985), reh'g denied (Minn., Jul. 24, 1985); State ex rel. Dreyer v. Board of Educ. of Indep. School Dist. No. 542, Battle Lake, 344 N.W.2d 411, 414 (Minn. 1984); Herfindahl v. Independent School Dist. No. 126, Clara City, 325 N.W.2d 36, 39 (Minn.
Respondent asserts this writ issued on July 17, 1986, more than 60 days after Thorsell's notice of placement on ULA on April 3, 1986. See Roseville Education Association v. Independent School District No. 623, 391 N.W.2d 846, 849 (Minn. 1986) ( Roseville Education II). Thorsell claims the proceeding he seeks to review is not his April 3 placement on ULA, but the May 19 school board demotion and reassignment of coordinator Stockhaus. He argues his writ is therefore timely as issuing within 60 days of May 19.
Instead, we conclude that his argument that the City missed the deadline for judicial review is a challenge to the appellate jurisdiction of the district court. See Roseville Educ. Ass'n v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 623, 391 N.W.2d 846, 849 (Minn. 1986) (holding that timely issuance of a writ of certiorari is a "jurisdictional prerequisite" to judicial review); cf. Minn. Stat. § 484.03 (2010) (authorizing the district courts to issue writs of certiorari as "necessary to the complete exercise of the jurisdiction vested in them by law"). Jurisdiction is a question that may be raised at any time by a party, or sua sponte by a court.
" A timely writ is a "jurisdictional prerequisite to judicial review." Roseville Education Ass'n v. Independent School District No. 623, 391 N.W.2d 846, 849 (Minn. 1986). Ms. Johnson argues that the writ is timely for review of these actions because the school board ratified them when it decided on May 20, 1991 not to renew her contract, but nothing in the record suggests that the school board reviewed or even considered ratification of these earlier actions by the superintendent of the school district.
By operation of Minn.Stat. § 606.01, a timely writ of certiorari would have necessarily been issued within 60 days after Johnson "received due notice of the proceeding sought to be reviewed," namely, within 60 days of the May 2, 1991 notification of the action of the school district. See Roseville Education Ass'n. v. I.S.D. # 623, 391 N.W.2d 846 (Minn. 1986) and Dokmo v. I.S.D. # 11, 459 N.W.2d 671 (Minn. 1990). The writ of certiorari is discharged.
), with id. subd. 6b(e) ("Reinstatement shall be in the inverse order of placement on leave of absence."). In addition, we have often recognized the importance of seniority generally under Minn.Stat. §§ 125.12 125.17. E.g., Roseville Educ. Ass'n v. Independent School Dist. No. 623, 391 N.W.2d 846, 852 (Minn. 1986); Walter v. Independent School Dist. No. 457, 323 N.W.2d 37, 43 (Minn. 1982); McManus, 321 N.W.2d at 893. We previously recognized that seniority is the primary consideration when reinstating teachers.
We recognize, however, that the seniority freeze date issue has arisen in the unrequested leave hearing and may be resolved there. Only the "second stage" of the unrequested leave hearing need be reconvened. See Roseville Education Association v. Independent School District No. 623, 391 N.W.2d 846 (Minn. 1986).III.
1978). See also Roseville Education Association v. Independent School District No. 623, 391 N.W.2d 846 (Minn. 1986) (effect of failure to request a hearing pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 125.12 following notice of proposed placement on unrequested leave of absence). Treating the seniority list as final and binding on the parties by reason of the failure to grieve, in timely fashion, the omission of licensure in a subject matter category may seem a harsh penalty indeed for the failure to perform what some would characterize as a technical requirement.
The supreme court has explained, “[i]f no hearing is requested, the person affected by the proposed action is deemed to have acquiesced therein.” Roseville Educ. Ass'n v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 623, 391 N.W.2d 846, 851 (Minn.1986) (“The purpose of a subsequent hearing [in unrequested leave determinations], if requested, is to test the basis for that proposed determination.”). One difficulty with the school district's reliance on the Roseville Education case is that the district is asking us to render Doran's acquiescence to the cooperative's decision to put him on leave a basis to reject his present challenge to the district's decision not to hire him.
Timely application for the writ is a "jurisdictional prerequisite to judicial review." Roseville Educ. Ass'n v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 623, 391 N.W.2d 846, 849 (Minn. 1986); see also King v. Univ. of Minn., 387 N.W.2d 675, 677 (Minn. App. 1986) (discharging untimely writ), review denied (Minn. Aug. 13, 1986).