Cited by

Melton v. Personnel Comm’n, 119 N.H. 272, 277 (1979); see RSA 490:4 (2010) (providing that the supreme court “may issue writs of certiorari.

In the context of a petition for a writ of certiorari, we have held that a party has standing if his “rights may be directly affected by the decision of a lower tribunal.” Melton v. Personnel Comm’n, 119 N.H. 272, 277 (1979) (emphasis omitted).

If DCYF’s decision not to certify The Pines rests on legitimate grounds or “is not so lacking in reason that it constitutes an abuse of discretion,” we will not tamper with it.

“Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy and is not granted as a matter of right but rather at the discretion of the court when the substantial ends of justice require such relief.” Melton v. Personnel Comm’n, 119 N.H. 272, 277, 401 A.2d 1060, 1063 (1979) (quotation omitted).

In light of the special circumstances that no entity other than MGC was concerned in this appeal, we ordered that the State *802 become a party hereto.

In reviewing the appeal tribunal’s factual findings on petition for writ of certiorari, this court must determine whether the findings “were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence.” Appeal of Golding, 121 N.H. 1055, 1058, 438 A.2d 292, 294 (1981); Melton v. Personnel Comm’n, 119 N.H. 272, 280, 401 A.2d 1060, 1065 (1979).

Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy, which is not granted as a matter of right but rather only when the court deems that “the substantial ends of justice require such relief.” Melton v. Personnel Comm’n, 119 N.H. 272, 277, 401 A.2d 1060, 1063 (1979) (quoting State v. N.H. Retail Grocers Ass’n, Inc., 115 N.H. 623, 625, 348 A.2d 360, 362 (1975)).

Appeal of Connolly, 122 N.H. 678, 680, 448 A.2d 422, 423 (1982); Melton v. Personnel Comm’n, 119 N.H. 272, 275, 401 A.2d 1060, 1062 (1979).

Of course, this court will review the commission’s decision only by way of a petition for a writ of certiorari.

or has abused its discretion or acted arbitrarily, or capriciously.” Melton v. Personnel Comm’n, 119 N.H. 272, 280, 401 A.2d 1060, 1065 (1979) (quoting Slayton v. Personnel Comm’n, 117 N.H. 206, 208, 371 A.2d 1159, 1161 (1977).

There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the commission’s finding on both issues.

Petition of Gorham School Bd., 121 N.H. 878, 880, 436 A.2d 74, 76 (1981) (quoting Melton v. Personnel Comm’n, 119 N.H. 272, 280, 401 A.2d 1060, 1065 (1979)) (citations omitted); Tasker v. N.H. Personnel Comm’n, 115 N.H. 204, 206, 338 A.2d 543, 544 (1975).

The writ of certiorari lies because the Gorham School Board is a party “directly affected” by the decision of the State Board.

RSA 541:13 establishes the standard for judicial review of rulemaking and adjudicatory proceedings of commissions and agencies.

RSA 98:3; cf. Melton v. Personnel Comm’n, 119 N.H. 272, 280, 401 A.2d 1060, 1065 (1979); Jeannont v. N.H. Personnel Comm’n., 118 N.H. 597, 601, 392 A.2d 1193, 1195 (1978); Wilson v. State Personnel Comm’n, 118 N.H. 424, 426, 387 A.2d 1160, 1161 (1978).

It comes to us on a motion by the State as defendant, see Melton v. Personnel Comm’n, 119 N.H. 272, 401 A.2d 1060 (1979), asking this court to dismiss plaintiffs’ petition in the nature of an appeal from a decision of the public works wage rate appeal board, RSA 280:3, and to refuse plaintiffs a writ of certiorari.

The instant petition was not one seeking certiorari, but the trial court could properly hear it as one since there is no statutory appeal provision.

of Parole, 115 N.H. 414, 419, 342 A.2d 634, 637 (1975); see, e.g., Melton v. Personnel Comm’n, 119 N.H. 272, 401 A.2d 1060 (1979); New Hampshire Bankers Ass’n v. Nelson, 113 N.H. 127, 302 A.2d 810 (1973).

Melton v. Personnel Comm’n, 119 N.H. 272, 401 A.2d 1060 (1979) (holding standing for any person “whose rights may be directly affected” in RSA 541:8 appeals from agency decisions and writs of certiorari.

Melton v. Personnel Comm’n, 119 N.H. 272, 401 A.2d 1060 (1979) (upholding personnel commission decision in promotion dispute).

We have held “that the legislature intended that any person, individual, or corporation (bodies corporate and politic), whose rights may be directly affected, may have recourse to the provisions of RSA 541:8.” Melton v. Personnel Comm’n, 119 N.H. 272, 401 A.2d 1060 (1979) (emphasis in original).