180 Ga. 864 | Ga. | 1935
Dewell filed a petition praying that Quarles, chief plumbing inspector of the City of Atlanta, be enjoined from enforcing against petitioner an ordinance of the city approved December 7, 1933, providing for the licensing of plumbers ; and that said ordinance be decreed void as violative of various provisions of the State and Federal constitutions. The judge declined to grant an interlocutory injunction, holding the ordinance constitutional. The petitioner assigns error on that judgment. He alleges that for several years prior to the passage of the ordinance of 1933 he had been engaged in the plumbing business, and, though a man of limited education, was a competent plumber; that during the years 1931, 1933, 1933, and 1934 he had been granted permits by the authorities of the City of Atlanta to do such work, but that in September, 1934, he had been refused a permit to do certain plumbing work because he had failed to pass the examina
Petitioner alleges that although he is a competent plumber he could not stand a written examination, due to his lack of education, while other plumbers with an education would be able to pass, thereby working a discrimination against uneducated plumbers; for which reason said ordinance is void as violative of the equal-protection clauses of the State and Federal constitutions. Section 10, exempting those who have heretofore been engaged in the plumbing business, is attacked as violative of the equal-protection clauses of the Federal and State constitutions, because working a preference and discrimination. Section 9, as to an appeal, is attacked on the ground that, “no matter what the evidence of proficiency be,” the board “ could in their discretion either pass the applicant or reject him; this is void, contrary to public policy and the grant of a fair trial, leaves the decision of the appellate court [mayor and general council] not to depend upon the evidence and law, but upon their discretion; that is whatever they want to do irrespective of evidence or law. This provision makes the ordinance contrary to the 14th amendment to the constitution of the United States, as it deprives the applicant of due process of law.” Petitioner alleges that the ordinance is void because, as “he is in
In principle this case is controlled by the rulings in Gregory v. Quarles, 172 Ga. 45 (157 S. E. 306), though the incidents in that case differ from the facts in the case at bar. In the Gregory case the matter was one of discriminating between plumbers “working upon or'engaging in working about plumbing fixtures in buildings of any kind where sewer connections are being made with city sewers,” and persons “engaged in repair and maintenance work upon plumbing fixtures . . where sewer connections have already been made.” In the case at bar it is provided by the ordinance that applicants who fail to “pass said examination shall have the right to appeal to the mayor and general council, who in their discretion can either grant or refuse a certificate of proficiency, even though said party shall have failed to pass said examination, with the right of certiorari therefrom, all as provided by law, in case the decision of the mayor and general council is adverse to said applicant.” It will be observed that under the terms of this ordinance it would be within the discretion of the mayor and general council, upon a vote of that body, to declare one man well known to the mayor and general council to be a qualified plumber, and refuse another applicant merely because they were not acquainted with him, or for any other whimsical reason to decline to authorize him to carry on the business of plumbing. Under the ruling in Gregory v. Quarles, this is so discriminatory as to violate
Judgment reversed.