This is an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Fulton County which granted appellees’ (Mahony, McCannon and Shutterworth) petition for writ of certiorari and entered judgment in their favor against the City of Atlanta. Each of the appellees are former City of Atlanta employees who had been with the city 16,19 and 14 years respectively. They alleged that, in continuing employment with the city, they relied upon the provisions of the City of Atlanta Civil Service Rules and Regulations, Chapter XIII, Section 4(c), guaranteeing that a regular employee, when laid off, may “retreat” to the position and class from which such employee was promoted or advanced. On January 25,1980 a newly enacted city ordinance replaced Chapter XIII, Section 4(c) with a new section 4(c) which provided that laid-off employees shall have their names entered on a special re-employment list and that such laid-off employees shall take precedence over all applicants on the job eligibility list for the class in which the employee last served.
On February 12, 1980 the Atlanta City Council enacted an ordinance abolishing the positions held by the three appellees and terminating their employment. The appellees filed grievances with the Atlanta Civil Service Board, which voted to uphold the abolishment of their positions. Appellees secured review of their case in Fulton County Superior Court by writ of certiorari. After a hearing, the trial court held (1) that the “retreat” provision created, in appellees, a vested interest in a property right to which due process guarantees attached, and (2) that by denying appellees their property interest without due process of law, the city’s action amounted to a violation of their rights under Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph III of the Georgia Constitution and the 5th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.
There can be no doubt that employees who are under the City of Atlanta Civil Service Act have a property interest in their continued employment. This right is constitutionally protected.
Brownlee v. Williams,
Vested proprietary rights may be affected, even revoked or
*6
terminated, but only in accordance with constitutional standards of due process of law.
Brownlee v. Williams,
supra. Appellees argue that their due process guarantees in this case were: (a) notice, (b) an opportunity to be heard before their termination, and (c) compliance with the “retreat” provisions of the city ordinance which was repealed. Appellees admit proper notice, but deny that they had an opportunity to be heard prior to their termination. However, the
Brownlee
case held that an evidentiary hearing subsequent to discharge meets the requirements of due process.
Vansant v. Cobb County Police Dept.,
The repeal of the “retreat” provision and the abolition of appellees’ positions does not, in and of itself, violate any constitutional guarantees, so long as such action is not taken as a subterfuge merely to single out and discharge particular employees.
City Council of Augusta v. Stelling,
The Civil Service Act was not meant to, nor does it, deal with terminations based on budgetary concerns. Smith v. Board of Commrs., supra. Here there is no constitutional guarantee to the absolute perpetuation of the “retreat” provision, but only due process safeguards which were sufficiently afforded.
For all these reasons the order of the trial court is reversed.
Judgment reversed.