5 C.F.R. § 2.1

Competitive examinations and eligible registers; suitability and fitness for civil service employment

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) OPM shall be responsible for:

(i) Open competitive examinations for admission to the competitive service that will fairly test the relative capacity and fitness of the persons examined for the position to be filled.

(ii) Standards with respect to citizenship, age, education, training and experience, physical and mental fitness, and for residence or other requirements that applicants must meet to be admitted to or rated in examinations.

(iii) Standards of suitability based on character and conduct for appointment to a position in the competitive service, for appointment to a position in the excepted service where the incumbent can be noncompetitively converted to the competitive service, and for career appointment to a position in the Senior Executive Service.

(iv) Minimum standards of fitness based on character and conduct for appointment in any other position in the excepted service of the executive branch, except for (A) positions in any element of the intelligence community as defined in the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, to the extent they are not otherwise subject to OPM appointing authorities, and (B) positions where OPM is statutorily precluded from prescribing such standards.”

(b) In addition to the names of persons who qualify in competitive examinations, the names of persons who have lost eligibility on a career or career-conditional register because of service in the armed forces, and the names of persons who lost opportunity for certification or who have served under career or career-conditional appointment when OPM determines that they should be given certification, may also be entered at such places on appropriate registers and under such conditions as OPM may prescribe.

(c) Whenever the Office of Personnel Management (1) is unable to certify a sufficient number of names to permit the appointing officer to consider three eligibles for appointment to a fourth-class postmaster position in accordance with the regular procedure, or (2) finds that a particular rate of compensation for fourth-class postmaster positions is too low to warrant regular competitive examinations for such positions, it may authorize appointment to any such position or positions in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed by OPM. Persons appointed under this paragraph may acquire competitive status subject to satisfactory completion of a probationary period prescribed by OPM.

[28 FR 10023, Sept. 14, 1963, as amended by E.O. 13764, 82 FR 8115, Jan. 23, 2017]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2023 · leading case: Barry J. Abell v. Dep't of the Navy, 343 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Barry J. Abell v. Dep't of the Navy, 343 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “” 5 C.F.R. § 2.1 . 3 . All references are to regulations as set forth in the 2002 version of the Code of Federal Regulations.”

Joseph v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 505 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “5 C.F.R. § 2.1 . The applicants with the three highest ratings are submitted to the appointing official, who is ordinarily required to select one of them.”

Dean v. Consum. Prod. Saf. Comm'n, 548 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “5 C.F.R. § 2.1 (“Competitive examinations and eligible registers”).”

MOW SUN WONG Et Al., Appellants, v. Alan K. CAMPBELL, Dir. of the Off. of Pers. Mgmt. Et Al., Appellees, 626 F.2d 739 (9th Cir. 1980). “1(a), 5 C.F.R. § 2.1 (a) at 8 (1979), reprinted in 5 U.”

Raymond E. Dodd v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 770 F.2d 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “§§ 2102 note, 3304, 3361; 5 C.F.R. § 2.1 . Thus, we think that it is clear beyond peradventure that TVA employees are in the excepted service, not the competitive service.”

Dean v. Dep't of the Air Force, 592 F. App'x 923 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “To fill a competitive-service position, the government uses “open competitive examinations” to make final appointments, 5 C.F.R § 2.1, and it must comply with specified requirements for announcing jobs and selecting applicants, see 5 C.”

Klein v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 577 F. Supp. 260 (E.D.N.Y 1983). “” 5 C.F.R. § 2.1 (a). As the Supreme Court recognized in Ramspeck v.”

Jolley v. MSPB (Fed. Cir. 2018). “(citing 5 C.F.R. § 2.1 ). The applicants with the three highest ratings are submitted to the ap- pointing official, who is ordinarily required to select one of them.”

The Dep't of Def.'s Auth. to Conduct Background Investigations for Its Pers. (OLC 2018). “…overseeing suitability investigations and determinations. See id. §§ 1(a)(iii), 3(s) (amending Civil Service Rule II, 5 C.F.R. §§ 2.1 (a), and Exec. Order No. 13467, § 2.5(b)). He has further specified that the NBIB, an entity within OPM, shall “serve as the primary executive…”

Jolley v. Hud (Fed. Cir. 2023). “(citing 5 C.F.R. § 2.1 ). The three high- est-rated applicants are then considered by the appointing official, who is generally required to select one of them.”

Kenneth Vanderford v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2015). “48 , ¶ 10; 5 C.F.R. § 2.1 . An integral part of the open competitive examination process is the assignment of numerical scores, followed by the rating and ranking of candidates according to those scores.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.