holding employee did not have a vested property interest in promotion; therefore, due process rights did not attach
How later courts described this case
- holding employee did not have a vested property interest in promotion; therefore, due process rights did not attach
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
On Motions for Rehearing
We overrule the appellant’s motion for rehearing.
The appellees seek clarification of the basis for our sustaining the appellant’s *96 sixth point of error. We hold that the trial court had jurisdiction to determine whether the Civil Service Commission failed to comply with the provision in Section' 14, paragraph E of Article 1269m that the fire chief’s reasons for not appointing Mr. Pruitt “shall be valid and subject to review by the Commission upon the application of such rejected person.” We cannot say as a matter of law that the review made by the Commission, as described in its chairman’s affidavit noticed above, was sufficient to comply with the statutory provision quoted in the preceding sentence.
We grant the appellees’ motion for rehearing. We again affirm the trial court’s order in all respects except its dismissal of the mandamus count. Under the undisputed facts presented to the trial court, we now remand this cause to the trial court for entry of a mandamus order directing the Commission to give notice to Mr. Pruitt and to afford him an opportunity to participate in the Commission’s review of the validity of the fire chief’s reasons for not appointing him.
Judgment rendered and original opinion filed December 23, 1976.
Appellees’ motion for rehearing granted; former judgment vacated, set aside and annulled.
Judgment rendered and opinion on rehearing filed February 17, 1977.