dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The Commissioner properly concluded, on the facts and law of this case, that in violation of the Minnesota Veterans Preference Law respondent was improperly removed from his position as correctional team leader, and should be reinstated.
The parties agree that there are no Minnesota cases that allow a veteran to be removed from public employment in a fact situation similar to this.
The majority states the issue in this matter as:
Can a veteran be removed from a promotional position without a veterans preference removal hearing where the county board finds that procedures used in making the promotion were in violation of the county’s personnel administration system?
To restate the issue in the context of these facts:
Can a veteran be removed from a promotional position without a veterans preference hearing where a county board (and, presumably, the governing body of any other governmental unit) conducts a promotional examination; promotes a veteran on the basis of the results of the examination; after the veteran has been in the position for almost a year, because of pressure from unsuccessful candidates decides that the examination was flawed; conducts another examination; on the basis of the reexamination removes the veteran from the position; and appoints another person to the same position from which the veteran has been removed?
It is very clear that .in Minnesota there are three grounds on which a veteran can be removed from public employment. They are set out in Young v. City of Duluth:
[Pjublic employers have only three grounds on which to base a termination of a veteran. The Act allows a termination for “incompetency” or “misconduct” and [State ex rel. Boyd v. Matson, 155 Minn. 137, 193 N.W. 30 (1923)] permits a public employer to, in good faith, abolish a position held by a veteran. The Act specifically requires a public employer removing a veteran from employment *481to provide written notice of his or her veterans preference rights.
Id., 386 N.W.2d 732, 738 (Minn.1986).
It is stipulated between the parties that here there is no claim of incompetence or misconduct. The only other way in which a veteran can be removed from public employment is if the position from which the veteran is removed is, in good faith, abolished.
Here, of course, the position of Correctional Team Leader was not abolished. The duties of that particular position were merely assigned to another person. To contend that after almost one year in the job Ochocki was a temporary employee, and never rightfully held the position is unrealistic.
Based upon decisions from other jurisdictions interpreting their civil service laws, the majority has created a fourth ground on which to base the termination of a veteran from governmental employment. Apparently, this new ground for termination holds that when the Veterans Preference law conflicts with a governmental unit’s personnel administration system the Veterans Preference law does not apply.
I cannot accept that as being the law in Minnesota, and I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.
The order of the Commissioner of Veterans Affairs should be affirmed.