IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application for mandates in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, Writ of Mandamus and Writ Prohibition under and in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. Hewa Gajaman Kankanamage Sabeeth Chathuran, No. 6B/6, Agriculture Quarters, Gannoruwa, Peradeniya.

Court of Appeal Case No:

CA/WRIT/540/25 PETITIONER Vs.

1. Chairman, Transfer Board, Forest Department, Sampathpaya, 82, Rajamalwatta Road, Sri Jayawardanepura, Kotte.

2. Conservator General of Forests, Forest Department, Sampathpaya, 82 Rajamalwatta Road, Sri Jayawardanepura Kotte. 3. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulfsdorp, Colombo 12.

RESPONDENTS Before: Mayadunne Corea, J Mahen Gopallawa, J Counsel: Dasun Nagashena with Shihara Ekanayaka instructed by Jayamuditha Jayasooriya for the Petitioner.

R . Aluwihare SC for the Respondents.

Supported on: 01.07.2025 Decided on: 25.07.2025 Mayadunne Corea J The Petitioner has sought among other things the following reliefs:

“b. Grant and issue a mandate in the nature of a writ of Certiorari to quash the transfer decision of the Board of Appeal and/or the Conservator General of Forests dated 09.05.2025.

c. Grant and issue a mandate in the nature of a writ of Prohibition restraining the Respondents from giving effect to the impugned transfer decision of the Board of Appeal and/or the Conservator General of Forest dated 09.05.2025.

d. Grant and issue a mandate in the nature of a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to implement the provisions of the transfer procedure and the Gazette Extraordinary No. 2310/29 dated 14.12.2022.”

The facts of the case are briefly are as follows. The Petitioner is a Beat Officer attached to the Forest Department and he has been serving in the Senkadagala Beat within the Kandy Range in the Kandy District. However, he had been subsequently transferred to the Udaththawa Beat in the Hunasgiriya Range and as a result of him appealing the transfer, he has been transferred to the Udawattakele Conservation Centre. He alleged that once transferred to the Senkadagala Beat he could have served for a period of five years at the said Range. It is his contention that without him seeking a transfer and before the expiry of five years at the Senkadagala Beat he cannot be transferred. Hence the argument that his transfer is bad in law and hence, this Writ Application.

The Petitioner’s contention The Petitioner submits that as per the Gazette that provides for transfer procedures dated 12.12.2022 he can remain in the same station for a period of five years and accordingly, the decision to transfer him within the period of five years is bad in law.

The Respondents’ objections The Respondents among other things raised the following objections:

• The Petitioner’s prayer is vague.

• Necessary parties are not before Court.

• On appeal the Petitioner has been given another transfer and therefore, prayer D and C are futile.

Analysis This Court will now consider the Respondents’ objections along with the Petitioner’s submissions.

The parties are not at variance that the Petitioner is in the public service of Sri Lanka and his transfers are governed by the Public Service Commission Procedural Rules (herein referred to as ‘PSC Rules’).

The question before this Court is whether the Petitioner once transferred to a Beat is entitled as of a right to work in the same place for a period of five years and if so, whether any transfer made within that period of five years is bad in law.

The Petitioner has been appointed as a Beat Officer to the Forest Department on 01.03.2000 and by letter dated 05.06.2023 he had been transferred to the Senkadagala Range in the Kandy District (P2). Subsequently, on 20.02.2025 he had been served with another transfer assigned to the Udaththawa Beat in the Hunasagiriya Range (P3). It is not disputed that the said transfer was made just few months short of the P