B GOPALAIAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The several petitioners were previously employed as teachers in various Aided Elementary Schools run by private management within the limits of Cuddapah Municipality. In accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Educational Institutions (Requisitioning and Acquisition) Act of 1956 the Government decided to take over privately managed Elementary Schools in Cuddapah and East Godabari Districts. G. O. Ms. No. 2730 Education dated, 13-8-1959 contains the scheme for taking over the management of these schools. Sub-clause (5) of Clause 2 of the G. O. provides:

(2.) Sri Ahmed Moinuddin, Assistant Secretary to Government, Education Department has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the Government Explaining the reasons for the Memorandum he states in paragraph 4 as follows:-

(3.) The learned Government Pleader, however contends that the persons who are likely to be affected if the Memorandum is struck down, namely the teachers in the other Municipal Schools are not before the court and therefore this court should not interfere. I cannot agree. This is not case of discrimination of individual against individual. This is a case where a whole class of citizens have been discriminated against and the court cannot refuse to give relief to then on the ground that the class of persons who will be benefited as a result of the discrimination are not before the Court. The person who complains of discrimination cannot be expected to search the country for all persons who are likely to be benefited by its discriminatory policy. Of course, if the discrimination is in favour of an individual against an individual different considerations might arise. But this is not such a case. In my opinion, where a scheme formulated by the Government is attacked on the ground of its being discriminatory the position is precisely the same as if a statute is attacked as being discriminatory and it can never be an answer to such an attack the persons likely to be benefited by the discriminatory statute should be brought before the Court before the statute is struck down. I therefore see no force in the contention of the learned Government Pleader. The Writ petition is therefore allowed and Memorandum No. 6654-12-62-11 dt. 24-9-1963 is quashed. The petitioners are entitled to their costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 150. BDB/ D. V. C. Petition allowed.