JUDGEMENT

K. M. G. H. KULATUNGA, J.

1. The petitioner is seeking to challenge his transfer effected by P-3, dated 09.08.2021. At the point of the impugned transfer, the petitioner had been serving as the Divisional Secretary of Vakarai, Koralaipattu North. He had been transferred to the Ministry of Public Administration, Provincial Councils and Local Government with immediate effect. This transfer had been effected by the Secretary of the Ministry, in accordance with Regulation 222 (iii) of the Procedural Rules of the Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the PSC”), published in the Gazette Extraordinary No. 1589/30 of 20.02.2009, subject to the covering approval of the PSC.

2. Upon being so transferred, the petitioner instituted this application initially, by petition dated 23.10.2021. Subsequently, the said petition was amended by the amended petition dated 19.11.2021. That being so, the matter was to be supported with direct notice to the respondents, and the 1^st – 5^th respondents have, on 14.03.2022, tendered a limited statement of objections objecting to the granting of notices and the issue of interim relief. It is relevant to note that though the Rules do not specifically provide for applications to file such limited objections prior to support and issuing of formal notices, subject to the discretion of court, it is sometimes allowed.

3. That being so, the respondents, with their limited objections, tendered documents R-1 to R-5, of which R-4 was the covering approval (dated 07.12.2021) issued by the PSC, whereby the approval sought by P-3 had been granted. Then, the matter was set for support on 17.05.2022. The petitioner sought to once again amend the petition to add the PSC as a party to the same and has been refixed for support. On 02.08.2022, the learned President’s Counsel appearing for the petitioner has moved for further time to file the amended petition. Accordingly, the matter was rescheduled to be supported on 07.10.2022. Accordingly, the second amended petition had been filed, and the letter of covering approval of the PSC, R-4, has also been annexed and marked P-30 to the second amended petition, whilst naming the members of the PSC as party respondents. Correspondingly, the petitioners had added further prayers (g), (h), (i), and (j), seeking writs of certiorari, prohibition, and interim relief against the said letter P-30. It is the application based on this second amended petition that has been supported on 03.11.2022. At the point of supporting, the learned President’s Counsel, Mr. Geoffrey Alagaratnam, has informed that “the petitioner is only challenging the decision P-3, and the additional secretary had no authority or power to take such a decision even subject to the approval of the PSC.” The 1st – 6th respondents have filed their objections on 26.05.2023. The respondents have, inter alia, raised the objection based on the ouster clause incorporated in Article 61A of the Constitution.

4. This matter was accordingly taken up for argument on 25.09.2025.When it was so taken up for argument, the main argument of Mr. Ganesharajan, the Senior Counsel for the petitioner, was that the Secretary of the said Ministry did not have the power or authority to issue the letter of transfer P-3, and also that there were no reasons assigned on the face of it, except the reference to Regulation 222 (iii) of the Procedural Rules of the Public Service Commission. It was his argument that the ouster clause in Article 61A has no application because the petitioner is challenging the procedure and the authority of the Secretary to issue the said letter in that form. It is his position that the purported covering approval had been sought almost 3 months after the issue of letter P-3, and thus, the petitioner is entitled to challenge the said letter P-3 in this Court, notwithstanding the ouster clause. He also laid emphasis on the fact that this application was initially instituted on 23.10.2021, well before the g