University's statutory recruitment powers under Universities Act prevail over subsequent circulars if process initiated prior to issuance.

The Petitioner is an individual and a member of Sri Lankan society who has filed the above-styled action in the interest of the public; therefore, it can be deemed a public interest litigation. It is alleged that the Government, during the economic crisis experienced from 2021 to 2022, issued several circulars prohibiting the recruitment of new cadres to various government departments; this included lecturers for the University of Batticaloa (hereinafter referred as ‘the University’). The Petitioner asserts that despite these circulars issued by the Treasury and the Government, the 2nd Respondent, the Vice Chancellor, on behalf of the 1st Respondent, the University, recruited several individuals for the position of lecturers at the 1st Respondent University, thereby violating

the said circular, which is part of the by-laws of the country. As such, the Petitioner seeks the reliefs as prayed for in the Petition.

However, certain limited objections also have been filed for and on behalf of the Respondents and brought to the notice of the Court. The 2nd Respondent has taken the decision long before the issuance of the relevant circulars and even the recruitment process had been initiated prior to the circulars. Therefore, there is no violation of the said rules taken place in the processing of the said application. However, as the appointments have been made, part of the reliefs sought by the Petitioner cannot be maintained; therefore, the application should be dismissed. This was supported on 07.08.2025 and the following arguments were advanced by the counsel of the parties.

## Arguments

The thrust of the main contention of the Counsel for the Petitioner is that the 1st Respondent has appointed several lecturers as employees thereof in violation of the circular marked as P1 issued by the Secretary to the Treasury and Minister of Finance. Therefore, such appointments are violative of the said circular, and a Writ of Certiorari lies.

However, on the other hand, Mr. Gunaratne, the learned State Counsel for the Respondents, argued that all the appointments were advertised, the applications were received, and thereafter interviews were held, and the appointments were made prior to the issuance of the said circular. Therefore, the Petitioner’s argument advanced in support of this application fails. As such, notice given should be refused and application should be pro-forma dismissed.

## Recruitment process was initiated prior to P1

I consider the documents marked as P1 to P7 filed by the Petitioner. In addition to that, I also considered R1 to R10 filed along with the objections. The document marked R1 reflects the

number of students taken in the academic years 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021, and 2021-2022. The number of students taken in 2018-2019 was 1,558; in the academic year 2019-2020, 1,991 students; in the academic year 2020-2021, 2,040 students; and in the academic year 2021-2022, 1,873 students were taken in, which is more fully depicted in the table below.

Table $1^{1}$

Therefore, there was a consistent number of students taken into the University; there is no diminution or reduction of the student intake number for the consecutive academic years starting from 2018 to 2021.

However, it has transpired that there were vacancies in several departments of the University. Hence, the recruitment of lecturers or members of the academic staff was necessary. As such, the $1^{\text{st}}$ Respondent, the University, has obtained permission from the University Grants Commission (herein after referred to as "UGC"), who is the relevant authority to recruit the relevant number of members of the academic staff for each and every department where the vacancies had existed. Accordingly, R2 has been issued by the UGC to the Vice Chancellor of the University, who is the responsible officer for recruiting the relev