C.F.R. » Title 5 » CHAPTER I—OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT › SUBCHAPTER A—CIVIL SERVICE RULES › PART 6—EXCEPTIONS FROM THE COMPETITIVE SERVICE (RULE VI)

5 C.F.R. § 6.1

Authority to except positions from the competitive service

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

(a) OPM may except positions from the competitive service when it determines that (A) appointments thereto through competitive examination are not practicable, or (B) recruitment from among students attending qualifying educational institutions or individuals who have recently completed qualifying educational programs can better be achieved by devising additional means for recruiting and assessing candidates that diverge from the processes generally applicable to the competitive service. These positions shall be listed in OPM's annual report for the fiscal year in which the exceptions are made.

(b) OPM shall decide whether the duties of any particular position are such that it may be filled as an excepted position under the appropriate schedule.

(c) Notice of OPM's decision granting authority to make appointments to an excepted position under the appropriate schedule shall be published in the Federal Register.

[28 FR 10025, Sept. 14, 1963, as amended by E.O. 11315, 31 FR 14729, Nov. 19, 1966; E.O. 12043, 43 FR 9773, Mar. 10, 1978; E.O. 13562, 75 FR 82587, Dec. 30, 2010]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases, 1955–2015 · leading case: Jane Doe v. United States Dep't of Just., 753 F.2d 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jane Doe v. United States Dep't of Just., 753 F.2d 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1985). “See 5 C.F.R. § 6.1 (1984). An excepted civil servant is not afforded the substantive and procedural protections prescribed by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), Pub.”
Peters v. Hobby, 349 U.S. 331 (1955). · cites it 2× “101 (n); 5 CFR § 6.1 (d). [25] On December 17, 1948, the Board issued the following directive, entitled "Legal effect of advisory recommendations," to the departments and agencies covered by the Order: "The President expects that loyalty policies, procedures, and standards will…”
Stewart v. Rubin, 948 F. Supp. 1077 (D.D.C. 1996). · cites it 2× “See 5 C.F.R. §§ 6.1 , 6.2. Plaintiffs also have alleged in this action that Schedule A status had a stigmatizing effect on African-Americans.”
Michael J. Haley v. Dep't of the Treasury, 977 F.2d 553 (Fed. Cir. 1992). · cites it 2× “Petitioner contends that the Agency had no right to reinstate him as an excepted employee because pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 6.1 (a) the Agency could not show that his position as an Examiner should have been one excepted from the competitive service.”
Hedman v. United States, 15 Cl. Ct. 304 (Ct. Cl. 1988). “§ 2102 (a)(1)(A); 21 5 C.F.R. § 6.1 (1984); 5 C.F.R. § 1.2 (1984).”
Dean v. Dep't of Labor, 808 F.3d 497 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “Section 7 of the Executive Order amended 5 C.F.R. § 6.1 (a) to provide: OPM may except positions from the competitive service when it determines that .”
Nat'l Treasury Employees Union v. Ricki Helfer, Chair, Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 53 F.3d 1289 (D.C. Cir. 1995). “10,-577, 5 C.F.R. § 6.1 (a) (1994). OPM thereafter divided excepted service positions into three categories: Schedules A, B, and C.”
Raymond E. Dodd v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 770 F.2d 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “§ 2102 (a)(1)(A), by the Office of Personnel Management under 5 C.F.R. § 6.1 , or from the Civil Service Act requirements, 5 C.”
Carter v. Rubin, 14 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1998). “Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. §§ 6.1 , 6.2, the office of Personnel Management ("OPM”) has authorized ATF to hire a limited number of Special Agents under Schedule A.”
Comm. for Prot. of First Amendment Rights of Dep't of Agric. Employees v. Bergland, 434 F. Supp. 314 (D.D.C. 1977). “…“excepted service” connotes positions “excepted” from the competitive requirements of the Civil Service Commission. 5 C.F.R. § 6.1 .”
Nat'l Treasury Employees Union v. Seidman, 786 F. Supp. 1041 (D.D.C. 1992). “10577, 5 C.F.R. § 6.1 (a). 5 . Properly, the government focused its standing argument only on the first and third requirements of Valley Forge.”
Mazhar Jalil v. Robert E. Hampton, Chairman United States Civil Serv. Comm'n, 460 F.2d 923 (D.C. Cir. 1972). “” 5 C.F.R. § 6.1 . In that event the responsibility for determining qualifications is vested not in the Commission but in the President or other executive officials.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
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.