WITHANAGAMA AND OTHERS

WITHANAGAMA AND OTHERS

VS.

INCORPORATED COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION AND OTHERS

SUPREME COURT
MALALGODA, J.
FERNANDO, J.
THURAIRAJA, J.
SC/APPEAL/163/2015
SC/SPL/LA/261 /2014
CA/WRIT/181/2014
SEPTEMBER 7, 2020

Writs of certiorari and mandamus-Legitimate expectation-Discretion of a public authority-Reasonableness-Council of Legal Education Ordinance, No. 2 of 1900, section 7(1)-Council of Legal Education Rules, Rule 23(2)(VlII)

The petitioners were prospective students of the Sri Lanka Law College, who sat for the entrance examination for the academic year 2014. The petitioners had scored 64 or 65 marks at the said examination and complained that the decision of the 1st respondent, the Council of Legal Education to declare the cut-off point at 66 marks was arbitrary and unreasonable. They sought a writ of certiorari to quash the decision of

the 1st respondent to admit only 177 students to the Law College for the year 2014, and a writ of mandamus on the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent, the Principal of the Law College, and the 3rd respondent, the Minister of Justice, to increase the intake up to 225 students. The petitioners further complained that there is an annual average intake of 225 students and therefore the decision to restrict the intake to 177 in the year 2014 was against their legitimate expectation. The Court of Appeal refused notice and dismissed the application. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.

Held :

1. Under Rule 23(2)(VIII) of the 1st respondent, made under section 7 of the Council of Legal Education Ordinance, it is clear that the 1st respondent is vested with the discretion to determine the number of vacancies for each academic year, subject to the limitation that students obtaining less than 40 per centum of the maximum mark cannot be admitted.

2. The performance report of the Ministry of Justice for the year 2012, which gives the annual intake of the Law College as 225, factually contradicts the statistical intake of the Law College. The 1st respondent is governed by the Ordinance by which it was established and the Rules made there under. Therefore, a decision of the 1st respondent under a special Rule cannot be superseded by a mere statement and/or document made on the pretext of a performance report.

3. The doctrine of legitimate expectation based on established practice can be invoked only by someone who has dealings or transactions or negotiations with the authority on which such established practice has a bearing or by someone who has a recognised legal relationship with such authority.

4. The 1st respondent is vested with wide discretion to decide the size of the batch and the cut-off mark. The petitioners, by making the declaration submitted with their applications, admitted the wide discretion of the 1st respondent to decide the number of students to be admitted for the academic year 2014 by deciding the cut-off mark, which is the "foundation to the legitimate expectation" as held by the Court of Appeal in Vasana v. Incorporated Council of Legal Education and others [2004] 1 Sri LR 154.

5. The doctrine that powers must be exercised reasonably has to be reconciled with the no less important doctrine that the court must not usurp the discretion of the public authority. It is clear that the impugned decision to select 177 students by deciding the cut-off mark as 66 was within the discretion of the 1st respondent, as provided for by Rule 23(2)(VIII). The petitioners failed to establish that the decision violates their legitimate expectation and/or was arbitrary/unreasonable.

Cases referred to :

1. Ram Pravesh Singh v. State of Bihar (2006) 8 SCC 381

2. Vasana v. Incorporated Council of Legal Education and others [2004] 1 Sri LR 154

3. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223

APPEAL from the Judgment of the Court of Appeal.

Anura Guna

Click Here to Read the rest of this document