promotional examination “forthwith.” Id. at 595. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court examined the Home Rule Charter and the Civil Service Regulations and agreed with the trial court that there was no exception to the two-year mandatory expiration of promotional lists. Id. at 595-96. The Commonwealth Court held, however, that the appropriate remedy was not to order immediate administration of a new promotional exam, because the timing and scheduling of examinations is a matter within the discretion of the Director of Human Resources. Rather, the Commonwealth Court stated that the Director “may now, at any time, reschedule another examination wherein the parties ... would have the same opportunity to participate and compete.” Id. at 596-97. See also City of Philadelphia, 574 A.2d at 126-27 (<HOLDING>). Because there is no right to be promoted and
holding that the applicable rule of procedure vests a successor judge with judicial discretion to review the jury verdict on a motion for new trial on the ground that such verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence where the record clearly discloses that no question of the credibility of the witnesses or the weight to be given to their testimony will require resolution by him holding that similar proceedings under the new jersey administrative procedure act are clearly judicial in nature and therefore meet the first part of the younger  test holding that because the home rule charter requires examinations that test the relative fitness of applicants for the position of police officer the citys institution of a new procedure that ranked applicants on an eligibility list in random order was contrary to this requirement and therefore legally improper holding the chief of police was an atwill employee because the parties agreed that the chief of police was an appointed officer and the citys charter stated that officers shall be appointed and may be removed by the mayor with consent of the council holding that the trial court on remand erred when it adopted a new theory of damages contrary to the order of the court of appeals