DR. WARREN ADAMS, WAURIKA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 23, PETITIONERS,
v.
THE PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES COMMISSION, MR. CARL WHITE, CHAIRMAN, RESPONDENTS.

�0 Application to assume original jurisdiction and for writ of prohibition.

Original proceeding involving application to assume original jurisdiction, and petition for writ of prohibition to prevent the Professional Practices Commission, a state agency, from proceeding further in an action filed before it alleging willful neglect of duty by petitioner.

Writ of prohibition granted.

Edwards & French by Larry French, Seminole, for petitioners.

Fagin, Hewett, Mathews & Fagin by Eugene Mathews, Oklahoma City, for respondents.

HODGES, Justice.

�1 This is an application to assume original jurisdiction and petition for writ of prohibition to prevent the respondent, Professional Practices Commission (PPC) from proceeding further in an action now pending before it. The initial question presented is who has the right to request a hearing before the Professional Practices Commission.

�2 An inquiry was held by the Board of Education of Waurika, Oklahoma, which concerned the moral conduct of Dr. Warren Adams (Adams) and certain expenditures incurred by him. The board found that many of the accusations were hearsay and refused to take any action against the superintendent on the basis of the accusations.

�3 Thereafter, on June 1, 1973, seventeen persons, some of whom were teachers in the Waurika school system, filed an unverified complaint with the PPC charging Adams with willful neglect of duty. (The Statute under which the complaint was filed requires that the complaint be verified. See 70 O.S. 1971 � 6-120 .

�4 Adams was notified that a hearing authorized by 70 O.S. 1971 � 6-120 would be held on June 25, 1973, and that each party would be allowed to present evidence and witnesses with the right to cross-examine opposing witnesses. The hearing was rescheduled several times. Copies of the complaints were not received by Adams until September 25, 1973.

�5 Petitioner Adams alleges that only a person charged with violation of professional standards has the right to request a hearing before the PPC.

�6 The statute, 70 O.S. 1971 � 6-120 , provides in pertinent part:

�7 The statute does not stipulate that a person charged with violation of professional standards has the "right" to request a hearing before the PPC. Instead, it provides that the PPC shall afford the right to a hearing. This is merely a statutory pronouncement of the constitutional right of the petitioner to procedural due process. The method and procedure to be utilized in initiating a hearing before the PPC is usually clarified by the rules and regulations of the commission or state agency.

�8 The PPC is given the initial responsibility of developing, through the teaching profession, criteria of professional practices in areas of contractual obligations on the part of teaching personnel, admission to and continuance in professional service, and ethical performance of members of the profession. 70 O.S. 1971 � 6-119 .

�9 The PPC acknowledges that the Administrative Procedures Act is applicable insofar as appeal from its actions are concerned However, the PPC has failed to comply with the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act, 75 O.S. 1971 � 251 which provides that any commission possessing rule making powers shall file a certified copy of its rules and regulations with the Secretary of State and two duplicate copies with the State Librarian and Archivist. Any rule and regulation of the commission is void unless filed and published in compliance with the act. See State v. Freeman, 370 P.2d 307, 312 (Okl. 1962).

�10 It is provided by 75 O.S. 1971 � 302 that:

�11 An administrative agency may not under the guise of its rule making power exceed the scope of its authority and act contrary to the statute which is the source of its authority. Its authority to make rules for its various procedures does not include authority to make rules which extend their powers beyond those granted by statutes. Boydston v. State, 277 P.2d 138, 139 (Okl. 1954). California Employment Commission v. Kovacevich, 27 Cal.2d 546, 165 P.2d 917, 921 (1946). It is, however, necessary and proper for administrative agencies to adopt rules of procedure as to matters coming under its jurisdiction. Bruce Motor Freight v. Lauterbach, 247 Iowa 956, 77 N.W.2d 613, 616 (1956).

�12 The teachers of this state are entitled to be treated according to a previously established uniform system of published rules and regulations pertaining to professional practices. See United States v. Griglio, 467 F.2d 572, 576 (C.A. 1st Cir. 1972).

�13 Proper administrative procedure requires that the rights of parties and the procedure of the agency on hearings be made the subject of agency regulations so that the parties may be advised of their rights. Mazza v. Cavicchia, 15 N.J. 498, 105 A.2d 545, 552 (1954).

�14 The rationale for requiring administrative rule making was set forth in Boller Beverages, Inc. v. Davis, 38 N.J. 138, 183 A.2d 64, 71 (1962). The court stated:

�15 The Professional Practices Commission possesses only the authority conferred on it by statute. All orders and rules made by it must conform with the statutes to be valid. Since no rules have been adopted by the PPC it has no authority to conduct a hearing until such time as the PPC has complied with the Administrative Procedures Act.

�16 WILLIAMS, V.C.J., and IRWIN, BERRY, LAVENDER, BARNES, SIMMS and DOOLIN, JJ., concur.