Janak De Silva, J.

The Petitioner is a graduate of the Faculty of Engineering, University of Peradeniya. She seeks to impugn the decision to award the E.O.E. Pereira Gold Medal (Gold Medal) to the 312^th Respondent. The Gold Medal was inaugurated by the friends and well-wishers of Prof. E.O.E. Pereira, formerly Dean, Faculty of Engineering and later Vice Chancellor, University of Ceylon, Peradeniya, in recognition of the long and distinguished service rendered by Professor Pereira to the University of Ceylon and the Engineering profession. The Gold Medal is awarded annually to the most outstanding student graduating from the Faculty of Engineering, University of Peradeniya, on the basis of scholastic as well as extra-mural excellence.

In response to a notice issued by the 310^th Respondent (Senior Assistant Registrar) on 15.02.2016 (P4), the Petitioner duly submitted her application for the Gold Medal on 19.02.2016 (P5).

On 26.02.2016, the Faculty Board after going through the applications, decided to adopt a marking scheme based on that used for the “Peradeniya University Gold Medal”(P6B and P6C). The Petitioner was thereafter informed by the 310^th Respondent on 02.03.2016 (by a letter dated 26.02.2016) to re-submit her application under the revised criteria (P6B and P6C) on or before 03.03.2016 (P6A). A notice of this was put on the notice board along with documents marked P6B and P6C.

On 09.03.2016 the Faculty Board recommended the Gold Medal to be awarded to the 312^th Respondent. The Petitioner, by letter dated 14.03.2016, appealed against the alteration of the selection criteria and the decision taken by the Faculty Board (P8). Following this, the Senate at its meeting on 23.03.2016, granted approval to the Faculty Board’s recommendation. Subsequently, on 02.04.2016, the University Council, resolved not to interfere with the decision of the Faculty Board. The Petitioner thereafter instituted this application on 20.04.2016, seeking inter alia to quash the decision to award the Gold Medal to the 312^th Respondent and to direct that it be awarded to her.

The Petitioner alleges that the procedure in recommending and approving the 312^th Respondent as the recipient of the Gold Medal violated her legitimate expectations, is ultra vires, arbitrary and irrational. The Petitioner seeks relief by way of quashing the impugned decisions contained in P6B and P6C together with the subsequent decisions of the Faculty Board, the Senate, and the Council awarding the Gold Medal to the 312^th Respondent.

The Petitioner further prays for a direction compelling the University authorities to re- evaluate the applications under the valid statutory framework as set out in P2C, or in the alternative, to grant the Gold Medal directly to the Petitioner, an order for costs and such other relief as this Court may deem just and equitable.

Leave to proceed has been granted under Article 12(1) of the Constitution. An interim order was issued restraining the 1^st Respondent from awarding the Gold Medal until the final hearing and determination of this application.

Time Bar

Learned DSG and President’s Counsel raised a preliminary objection that the application is time barred, as it was not filed within one month of the alleged infringement as required by Article 126(2) of the Constitution. It was submitted that the operative date of infringement was 02.03.2016, when the Petitioner was required to re-submit her application under the new marking scheme as she was aware of the new criteria at that point in time. On this basis, it is submitted that the filing of the application on 20.04.2016 falls outside the constitutionally mandated time limit.

The Petitioner, however, contends that the infringement was of an imminent and continuing nature and only crystallized upon the decision of the Senate on 23.03.2016.

Article 126(1) of the Constitution vests sole and exclusive jurisdiction on this Court to hear and determine any question relating to the infringement or imminent infrin