Dhammika Ganepola, J.

The 1^st Respondent Eastern University of Sri Lanka by its notice published dated 29.02.2020 (P7) had called for applications from qualified applicants to fill the posts of Senior Lecturer (Grade I/II), Lecturer (Unconfirmed), and Lecture (Probationary) in Tamil in its Department of Languages, Faculty of Arts and Culture. In response to the said notice, the Petitioner has submitted an application(P8) for the post of Senior Lecturer (Grade II). Accordingly, by the letter dated 08.02.2021(P9), the Petitioner has been called for an interview for the Post of lecture (Unconfirmed). The Petitioner states that there had been another interview conducted by the University on 08.03.2021 to select a suitable candidate for the post of Lecturer (Probationary). However, the Petitioner had not been summoned for the said interview. Later, the Petitioner had come to know that he has not been selected for any of the said posts for which applications were called by notice marked P7. Upon the queries made, the Petitioner has learnt that he had not been recommended by the Selection Committee due to his failure to obtain the required minimum marks as decided by the University. Nevertheless, the Petitioner states that he possesses all required qualifications to be appointed for the Post of Senior Lecturer (Grade II) under and in terms of the provisions of the Circulars issued by the 27^th Respondent i.e., University Grants Commission (UGC). Therefore, the Petitioner states that the decision arrived at by the 1^st Respondent based on the recommendations made by the Selection Committee, not to appoint the Petitioner for the post of Senior Lecturer (Grade II) is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions under the circulars issued by the 27^th Respondent. Accordingly, the Petitioner seeks inter alia for a mandate in the nature of the Writs of Certiorari (a)to quash the decision made by the Governing Council of the University to introduce a “required minimum mark” for the eligible candidates who appear before the Selection Committees, (b)to quash the recommendations made by the Selection Committee not to appoint the Petitioner as a Senior Lecturer (Grade II), (c)to quash the recommendations made by the Selection Committee to appoint the 29^th Respondent as a Lecturer (Probationary) and also Writ of Mandamus compelling the Council of 1^st Respondent University to appoint the Petitioner to the post of Senior Lecturer (Grade II).

The Petitioner advances the position that where a candidate with a Doctoral Degree applies for the post of Senior Lecturer, applications at Lecture (Probationary) level shall not be considered until such applicant for the post of Senior Lecturer is first evaluated and deemed unsuitable. The Petitioner relies upon Clause 3(ii)of the Establishment Circular Letter No. 17/2005 marked as P12A. However, the learned State Counsel who appeared on behalf of the Respondents submits that the above Clause 3(ii)of the Circular P12A is subject to the Scheme of Recruitment marked as P12 and particularly to Clause No. 6(3) therein. It appears from the said Clause 6(3) that where a candidate with a Doctoral Degree applies for the post of Senior Lecturer, such candidate is required to possess at least six (6) years of experience in one or more items mentioned therein for such candidate to be considered for the post of Senior Lecture. Nevertheless, the available material does not reveal that the Petitioner possessed such experience. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the relevant authority is authorised to disregard and/or reject the application of the Petitioner who has failed to satisfy basic qualifications which are necessary for him to be appointed to the post of Senior Lecturer Grade II, even without calling for the interview.

In arriving at the above conclusion, I refer to the following considered view taken up by Honourable Justice Sobhitha Rajakaruna in agreement with me in a similar matter bearing