2023 Supreme(SRI)(CA) 342
COURT OF APPEAL
Hon. Sobhitha Rajakaruna J
W.M.A. Bandara and others – Appellant
Versus
Dr. S. H. Munasinghe Secretary Ministry of Health and others - – Respondent
CA/WRIT/104/2022
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for writs of Certiorari and Mandamus in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.
1. W.M.A. Bandara Kotuwegedara, Madanwela, Haguranketha.
2. Y. K. Sumanawathi No. 29, Samarfield, Balagolla, CA/WRIT/104/2022 Kengalla.
3. K. W. G. Ajith De Silva
74, Christy’s Land, Kiralabokka, Kalugamuwa.
4. D. J. D. Samaratunga
84, Hospital Road, Dehiwala.
5. R. Damboragama
323/3, Main Road, Attidiya, Dehiwala.
6. G. M. Kodagoda No. P 65, Udawalawe Camp, Udawalawe.
7. K. T. A. P. Kodagoda, No. C 04, Quarters, IDH, Angoda.
8. B. D. P. Malkanthi
404 B, Temple Road, Katukohila, Induruwa.
9. Kumudini Kodikara Nadun Uyana, Weeraduwa, Matara.
10. E. L. Chandrika Enduragala Junction, Ingiriya.
11. D. G. K. Beatrice
456/10, Canal Road, Arangala, Hokandara North.
12. K. G. R. Kariyawasam Daluwalana, Waharaka
13. P. K. S. P. M. Jayawickrama
130/42 A, Hettiyawatta Road, Elpitiwala, Welisara.
14. D. Weedagama
31D, Mihindu Mawatha, Maviththara, Piliyandala.
15. R. W. K. W. M. L. W. Premaratne No. 94/1, Thalwatta, Gonawala, Kelaniya.
16. R. M. S. T. B. Rathnayake No. 117, Werapitiya, Kundasale
17. J. M. P. M. Jayathilaka No. 4/13, Nithulathanna, Kundasale.
PETITIONERS Vs.
1. Dr. S. H. Munasinghe Secretary, Ministry of Health, 385, Suwasiripaya, Ven. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mw, Colombo 10.
2. The Public Service Commission No. 1200 / 9 Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla.
3. The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12.
RESPONDENTS Before : Sobhitha Rajakaruna J.
Dhammika Ganepola J.
Counsel: Razik Zarook, PC with Rohana Deshapriya, Chanakya Liyanage for the Petitioners Hashini Opatha, SSC / S. Soysa, SSC for the Respondents Written submissions: Petitioners - 26.05.2023 Respondents - 26.05.2023 Decided on: 19.07.2023 Sobhitha Rajakaruna J.
A mandate in the nature of a writ of certiorari is sought by the Petitioners against the Secretary to the Ministry of Health- 1st Respondent, quashing Gazette No.2206 published on 11.12.2020 (’P3’), which contains a notice of the said 1st Respondent. The said Notice, which is impugned by the Petitioners (’Notice’), is in reference to the competitive examination for promotion to the Public Health Management Assistant Service (supra grade) on merit basis- 2018 (2020). The Petitioners are seeking an additional mandate in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the ‘Method of Evaluation’ particularly, described in paragraph marked ’P3(a)’ in the said impugned Notice. The alleged grievance of the Petitioners is that the introduction of the requirement of obtaining a minimum of 50% marks in the written examination (conducted by the Commissioner General of Examinations on behalf of the Health Service Committee of the Public Service Commission) in ’P3(a)’ is unreasonable, unfair and manifestly irregular. The Petitioners further plead that such a decision of the 1st Respondent has been made without lawful authority. Anyhow, it is reflected in ’P3’ that the Notice, which includes the said paragraph marked ’P3(a)’, has been published as per the order of the Health Service Committee of the Public Service Commission.
The Service Minute approved by the Public Service Commission (‘PSC’) on 06.04.2017 for the Public Health Management Assistants’ Service is published in the Gazette Extraordinary No. 2053/18 dated 09.01.2018 marked ’P2’ (’Service Minute’). There is no dispute among the parties that the PSC has delegated its’ powers of appointment, promotion, transfer, disciplinary control and dismissal of the public officers of the Health Management Assistants’ Service to the Health Service Committee of the PSC. The Respondents have annexed the Gazette Extraordinary marked ’R5’ in proof of such delegation of power.
The Respondents raising a preliminary objection assert that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the instant Application in terms of Article 61A of the Constitution, [The