Liebman

Petitioner is presently employed, as librarian III, at California State University, Los Angeles. He was recommended by his superior for reclassification to librarian IV. That recommendation was denied by a properly delegated person in the office of the chancellor *993 of the university. Petitioner then sought to file a grievance under the provisions of executive order No. 201, issued by the chancellor under the authority of section 24201 of the Education Code. His attempt to utilize the grievance procedure therein outlined was rejected on the ground that that procedure did not apply to actions taken by, or under the delegated authority of, the chancellor, but only to actions taken by the president of a local campus. He sought a writ of mandate to compel the university to afford him the hearing provided for under the grievance procedure. The writ was denied; he has appealed; we affirm.

On the record before us, we affirm the judgment denying the writ but on a ground other than that relied on by the respondents. Section 1.6 of the executive order provides as follows:

“The purpose of these Procedures is to provide an equitable means of correcting actions taken by The…

I concur in the result reached by the majority but I disagree with the reasoning by which the majority reaches its result.

The majority determines that the trial court was correct in denying the writ of mandate to appellant herein but affirms the judgment of denial on a ground other than that relied upon by the trial court. The issue involved is whether appellant had a right to file a grievance because he was denied reclassification from librarian III to librarian IV. Appellant sought to file a grievance under the provisions of executive order No. 201, issued by the Chancellor of the California State University and College System.

The majority does not determine the question of the applicability to appellant of the grievance procedure set forth in executive order No. 201. The majority reaches this result by reliance upon sections 1.6 and 3.3 of executive order No. 201. The majority states that these two sections require the utilization of all informal methods of resolving a dispute before resort to the grievance procedure, and that appellant had not utilized or exhausted the informal methods to obtain the relief he desired.

I do not see the logic in the majority’s position that…