IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application under and in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Republic.

1. K. L. I. Amarasekera, No. 2, Kuruppu Mulla Road, Panadura.

2. Jayasumana Munasinghe, No. 315/6, Vidyala Mawatha, Makol-South, Makola.

3. E. M. Premaratne, 673/21, Bluemendal Road, Colombo 15.

4. D. M. Anura Jayaweera, 20B, Liyanage-wagura, Kandy.

5. K. U. R. Upali, Kanthi Niwasa, Aladeniya, Werellagala.

PETITIONERS Vs.

1. Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01.

2. Dr. Lakdas Panagoda (Chairman)

3. Capt. Asitha Wijesekera (Vice Chairman)

4. Mr. Jagath P. Wijeweera (Director)

5. Mr. Saliya Senanayake (Director)

6. Suresh Edirisinghe (Director)

7. Mr. Athula Bandara Herath (Director)

8. Capt. Nihal Keppetipola (Managing Director)

nd th The 2 to 8 Respondents of; Board of Director, Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01.

9. L. H. R. Sepala, Chief Human Resource Manager, Sri Lanka Ports Authority, Kochchikade, Colombo 13.

10. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12.

RESPONDENTS BEFORE : PRIYANTHA JAYAWARDENA, PC., J.

VIJITH K. MALALGODA, PC., J.

K.KUMUDINI WICKREMASINGHE, J.

COUNSEL : Pulasthi Hewamanna with Harini Jayawardhana instructed by Sanjeewa Kaluarachchi for the Petitioners.

Yuresha de Silva, SSC for the Respondents. ARGUED ON : 24.11.2021 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS : Petitioners on 27.07.2021 and 08.12.2021 Respondents on 03.08.2021 and 13.01.2022 DECIDED ON : 27.09.2023 K. KUMUDINI WICKREMASINGHE, J.

This is an Application filed under Article 126(1) of the Constitution by the Petitioners seeking, inter alia, for a declaration that their fundamental rights to equality before the law and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by Article 12(1) of the Constitution and freedom of occupation as guaranteed by Article 14(1)(g) have been violated as a result of the arbitrary, capricious and/or irrational manner in which the Petitioners were deprived of their appointments to the rank of Assistant Security Officer, in contravention of established procedures and assurances of the Sri Lanka Ports Authority st (hereinafter referred to as the 1 Respondent).

On 13.08.2015, having heard the Counsel for the Petitioners in support of this Application and the Learned DSG who appeared for the Respondents, this court granted leave to proceed under Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

The Petitioners, aged 53-56 years at the time of filing this Application, have joined the 1st Respondent between 1981 and 1986 as Security Guards. At the time of filing this Application, they were serving as Security Sergeants. They have been appointed to the said positions after a written examination and an interview.

The Petitioners have become aware of an internal notice dated 11.02.2013 calling applications for appointments of Assistant Security Officers, and have submitted the duly completed application forms as required, which have been then accepted by the 1st Respondent. The requisite application form at clause 11 specifically provided for applicants who were 50 years and above, to notify the 1st Respondent whether they would opt to sit for a written examination or not, to which all the Petitioners in their respective application forms opted not to face such written examination. The Petitioners state that the accepted practice at the 1st Respondent has been to permit applicants who are over 50 years of age who apply for internal appointments, to forego a written examination and have their internal appointments based solely on the interview process. They further state that approximately 30% of vacancies are, as a practice, set aside for such method of internal appointments. The Petitioners have later found out that such established practice is based on Circular 16/2003 dated 28.05.2002.

However, the Petitioners state that they were asked by the officers of the management of the 1st Respondent to nominally sit for the said writt