Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.

Introduction Two fundamental rights applications were filed by 164 Sub Inspectors of Police, making the Inspector General of Police (IGP) and the members of the Public Service Commission (PSC) respondents, alleging violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 12(1) and 14(1)(g) of the Constitution by the adoption of the Scheme of Recruitment (SOR) marked P7 for promotion from the rank of Sub Inspector (SI) to the rank of Inspector of Police (IP). Upon completion of the pleadings, the two applications were consolidated and heard together and the parties have agreed to abide by a single judgment. Hence this judgment will be binding on the parties in the connected case – SC/FR/55/2021.

Promotions in the police force is a complex and complicated issue. There is no policy in place on promotions and various schemes have been adopted on an ad hoc basis from time to time to address the grievances of police officers as they arise. Unless and until a sound promotion policy is formulated taking into account the views of all stakeholders, this will be a recurring issue. The intensity of the issue is understood by looking at the schemes of promotion adopted in the recent past, as set out by the petitioners in the petition. A number of fundamental rights applications are pending before this Court on police promotions.

In the year 2010, as seen from P4, all Sub Inspectors who had completed eight years of service as at 08.02.2010 in the rank of SI were promoted to the rank of IP across the board, subject only to them having an unblemished record during the five years immediately preceding the date of promotion. This scheme was adopted to redress the frustration of senior officers due to stagnation in service; it only took into account seniority and there was no interview.

Thereafter, in the year 2016, as seen from P5, a different scheme was adopted for promotion from the post of SI to IP of officers who had completed 10 years of service in the rank of SI as at 31.05.2016; seniority and merit were both considered and there was a structured interview.

Subsequent to this, in the year 2020, once again in order to redress the frustration of senior officers due to stagnation in service, all Sub Inspectors who had completed eight years of service as at 31.12.2018 (provided salary increments had been earned), were promoted to the rank of IP despite not having the requisite qualifications set out in P5. This time, the number of years of service was reduced from 10 to eight and the structured interview was also dispensed with.

Then comes the scheme of recruitment in question adopted in 2020 marked P7, which provides for 4 categories of promotion:

As crystalised in the post-argument written submissions, the petitioners have three main grievances vis-à-vis P7:

(a) seniority has not been given due recognition (b) awarding marks on good entries at the interview is discriminatory (c) the category of special promotion is arbitrary Before I consider these in detail, let me address the preliminary objection raised by learned Deputy Solicitor General (DSG) for the respondents regarding the maintainability of this application on time bar.

Time bar objection The case record bears out that the Court has granted leave to proceed after hearing both learned President’s Counsel for the petitioners and learned DSG for the respondents. It is in the objections filed by way of an affidavit of the 1^st respondent IGP that the time bar objection is taken.

The time bar objection shall be taken at the earliest possible opportunity; otherwise it is deemed to have been waived. In terms of Article 134(1) of the Constitution read with Rule 44(6) of the Supreme Court Rules 1990, the Attorney General has the right of audience at the time of supporting the application for leave to proceed. Never