Summary
affirming trial court's denial of petition for mandamus where petitioner alleged that Board of Regents had acted illegally in denying his petition for review and not giving petitioner a hearing on his termination and where court found that Board had not acted illegally
Summary of this case from Cotton v. JacksonOpinion
S92A0481.
DECIDED MAY 11, 1992.
Mandamus. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge Cummings.
McKee Barge, Patrick W. McKee, Richard H. Barbe, for appellant.
Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Alfred L. Evans, Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.
This dispute concerns procedures required for review of certain personnel decisions for employees of the University System of Georgia.
The trial court held:
Petitioner alleges that in denying his petition for review, the Board of Regents fails to follow the mandates of Georgia's Administrative Procedure Act, OCGA § 50-13-1 et seq.; specifically OCGA § 50-13-13 which requires a hearing in all contested cases. Respondents contend, among other arguments, that the specific exclusion contained in OCGA § 50-13-2 (6) (H) requires dismissal of this Petition.
The Petition relates to a dispute involving evaluations, reassignment, employment and compensation. OCGA § 50-13-2 (6) (H) excludes from APA coverage "[r]ules which relate to the employment, compensation, tenure, terms, retirement, or regulation of the employees of the state or of an agency; ..." This Court concludes that the Board of Regents' policy in dispute in the case sub judice is covered by this exclusion. Thus, even upon a finding of coverage of the Board of Regents under the APA, supra, this action would be specifically excluded. It is unnecessary, therefore, to reach the issue of the Board of Regents' coverage under the provisions of the APA.
We agree with the trial court. The denial of the petitions for declaratory judgment and for mandamus are affirmed.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.