RANDENIYA AND OTHERS

Vs.

CHAIRMAN, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND OTHERS

SUPREME COURT
JAYASURIYA, C.J.
FERNANDO, J.
THURAIRAJA, J.
SC/FR/322/2011
JANUARY 13, 2020

Fundamental rights-Article 12(1) of the Constitution-Right to equality-Claim to a salary scale equal to peers-Legitimate expectation-Human Rights Commission Act, section 13(1)-Time bar objection taken at a later stage

The petitioners along with several others were recruited to the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports as Graduate Trainees. After their training, they were posted to different departments under different Ministries. The petitioners were appointed to the post of Career Guidance Officer and placed at a particular salary scale. They were later placed at the salary scale MN4 in accordance with the Public Administration Circular No. 6/2006. Subsequently they were absorbed into the newly established Department of Manpower and Employment under the Ministry of Labour Relations and Manpower. At the time of establishing the new department, the Department of Management Services had approved the cadre positions on the recommendations of the National Salaries and Cadres Commission. The Secretary to the Ministry of Labour Relations had sought the approval of the Department of Management Services to suppress 38 existing positions of Career Guidance Officers and create 38 Supra Grade positions and place the petitioners at the salary scale MN7. The National Salaries and Cadres Commission had not recommended this. The petitioners claimed they entertained a legitimate expectation that they would be placed at the salary scale MN? at a subsequent stage. The petitioners filed this application contending that the said decision of the National Salaries and Cadres Commission amounts to an infringement of their fundamental right to equality, as guaranteed under Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

Held:

1. The petitioners do not raise any concern over the salary scale that they were placed in when they were appointed to the post of Career Guidance Officer or the salary scale MN4 prescribed in the scheme of recruitment formulated two years later.

2. The National Salaries and Cadres Commission inter alia observes in its decision that the current officers can be absorbed into a structured graded system of promotion on a scheme of recruitment prepared in compliance with the Public Administration Circular No. 6/2006 and also taking into account the Cabinet decision dated 18.11.2009 which approved the creation of the department in which the petitioners serve. The Commission recommended that more responsibilities be given to officers who would be absorbed into higher grades based on seniority. The decision in question is rational and reasonable. It addresses the concerns and requirements of the officers, the interests of the department, and the overall policy of the public sector.

3. A mere hope or expectation cannot be treated as a legitimate expectation. None of the documents reflect that the respondents held out a promise to the petitioners. If at all, the documents contain only recommendations and/or proposals.

4. The objective of Article 12(1) of the Constitution is to ensure the equal treatment of persons. However, such guarantee does not forbid reasonable classification founded on intelligible differentia.

5. Maintaining different schemes of promotion in different departments and institutions does not create inequality between employees in one such department or institution as against employees in another department or institution even if they possess similar qualifications and had been recruited as a single group and were later posted to such different institutions and/or departments.

6. The petitioners have failed to establish a violation of their right to equality guaranteed under Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

Held further:

A party seeking shelter under section 13(1