ARIYARATHNE AND OTHERS

Vs.

INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND OTHERS

SUPREME COURT
ALUWIHARE, J.
PRASANNA JAYAWARDENA, J.
DEHIDENIYA, J.
SC/FR/444/2012
JANUARY 10, FEBRUARY 12, 2019

Fundamental rights-Article 12(1) of the Constitution-Legitimate expectation (procedural and substantive)

The petitioners entered the public service in 2004 under the Graduate Scheme. After an initial training at various Divisional Secretariats, they were attached to the Department of Police in 2005 as "Community Relations Officers" where they received residential training at the Sri Lanka Police College at Kalutara, which training the 1st respondent Inspector General of Police says was not similar to the training given to Police Officers of the regular Police Force. Thereafter, they were attached to the Police Headquarters and Police Stations throughout the island. In the latter part of 2005, they were appointed to the posts of Development Assistants in the Department of Police on a permanent basis, which was a transferable and pensionable post, and placed on the salary scale MN 4-2006. However, they are not "Police Officers" in the Sri Lanka Police Force which consists of the Regular Force and five specialised units, i.e. Police Medical Service, Police Engineering Service, Police Technical Service, Police Support Service and Police Special Service. The petitioners made representations to the authorities including the Inspector General of Police seeking to be absorbed into the regular Police Force or into one of the specialised units.

In 2010, the 12th respondent Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police wrote to the Inspector General of Police by P20 and P21 recommending that five new specialised units of the Sri Lanka Police Force be established, i.e. Police Educational Service, Police Analyst Service, Community Policing Service, Police Intelligence Service and Police Prosecution Service, and that the petitioners be absorbed into these new specialised units in the rank of Assistant Superintendents of Police and be placed on the salary scale SL 1-2006. However, this recommendation was not acted upon.

In 2012, the Director General of Combined Services issued a Service Minute P23 creating a new "Programme Officers' Service" in the public service which provided for public officers recruited under the Graduate Scheme such as the petitioners to be absorbed into the newly created Programme Officers' Service, if they so desired. The petitioners did not wish to be absorbed into the "Programme Officers' Service".

The petitioners filed this application seeking inter alia a declaration that their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 12(1) of the Constitution had been violated by (a) not giving effect to their "legitimate expectation" of being absorbed into the Sri Lanka Police Force and (b) issuing Service Minute P23 creating a "Programme Officers' Service".

Held:

1. The doctrine of legitimate expectation envisages that a court may, in appropriate circumstances and where the public interest does not require otherwise, enforce a "legitimate expectation" (as distinct from a personal or proprietary right) of a person that a public authority will act as it has promised or held out. The doctrine of legitimate expectation operates where an aggrieved person does not have a proprietary or personal right stricto sensu which gives him the locus standito challenge a decision of a public authority under the other grounds recognised by administrative law.

2. The scope of the doctrine of legitimate expectation covers two aspects: the procedural aspect and the substantive aspect.

3. A survey of decisions on issues of procedural legitimate expectation shows that where a public authority acting intra vires has given an assurance that it will hear a person before it changes

its policy with regard to a matter which affects him or has stated or otherwise made known its policy with regard to that matter or has