MENAKA WIJESUNDERA J.

The Petitioner in the instant matter has sought a declaration that the 1st to the 27th respondents have violated his fundamental rights under Article 12(1) and 14(1) (g) of the Constitution by failing to face him in the post of senior lecturer Grade II with effect from 06.04.2009, in the University of Sabaragamuwa.

When this matter was supported for leave, this court has granted leave under Article 12(1) and 14(1)(g) of the Constitution against 1st to the 27th respondents. The Petitioner in the instant matter have graduated from the University of Peradeniya obtaining a special degree in Chemistry in the year 1994. Thereafter he had obtained a MPhil from the Post Graduate Institute of Science in Peradeniya University in 2001. And also have his PhD in the same University in 2017. Thereafter, in February 2021 he had earned his Professorship.

The Petitioner is presently serving in the University of Sabaragamuwa as a Professor in the Department of Physical Sciences and Technology.

On 04.01.2009, the 1st Respondent have called for applications for the post of Senior Lecturer Grade I/II for the Department of Physical Sciences and Technology in the Faculty of Applied Sciences at the Sabaragamuwa University.

The petitioner had applied to the said post.

The Petitioner applied for the position of Senior Lecturer Grade II, despite it being 160 km from his residence, with a legitimate expectation of better career prospects. Thereafter, the petitioner had been recruited by the University of Sabaragamuwa by letter dated 24.03.2009 for the post of Lecturer (Probationary) subject to the condition that he will be recruited to the post of Senior Lecturer Grade II after obtaining the approval of the University Grants Commission which is the 27th respondent. The letter has been marked as P8.

Therefore, the petitioner states that although he assumed duties in the capacity of Lecturer (Probationary) on 06.04.2009 he had reasonable expectations to be upgraded to the post of Senior Lecturer Grade II which was the post which had been advertised. He further says that although P8 indicated to him that he would be considered to the Senior Lecturer Grade II in due course, 1st to the 27th respondents have failed to do so, despite many reminders by him, which had been marked and produced as part and parcel of the petition.

Paul Craig on ‘Administrative Law’ (6th Edition) at page 686:

“The concept of legitimate expectations should play the same general rule in this type of cases, as in relation to intra vires representations. It is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the representation to bind the public body. Reasonableness of reliance is a necessary condition for a legitimate expectation. It might be objected that a representee could never have a “legitimate” expectation if the representation was ultra vires. This is, however, merely a restatement of the general rule that ultra vires representations cannot ever bind, which is the very question in issue.”

The above clearly indicates that reasonableness of reliance is a necessary condition for a legitimate expectation. In the case at hand, granting of the position and acceptance of the said post of Lecturer (Probationary) by the Petitioner on 06.04.2009, with the legitimate expectation of being upgraded to the post of Senior Lecturer Grade II. No reasonable reliance can be placed on such decisions. It is to be noted that at this stage, the post of Lecturer (Probationary) was not advertised but only the post of Senior Lecturer Grade II. In Ariyarathne and Others v Inspector General of Police and Others (2019) 1 Sri LR 100 the Supreme Court held that, “the law, as it presently stands, is that an assurance given ultra vires by a public authority, cannot found a claim of a legitimate expectation based on that assurance. But it has to be recognised that there may be many instances where a petitioner who relies on an assurance given by a public authority or one of its officials, reasonably be