HORATHALGE THILAK LALITHA KUMARA

HORATHALGE THILAK LALITHA KUMARA
VS.
S.S. HEWAPATHIRANA, SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SKILLS AND OTHERS

SUPREME COURT
PRIYASATH DEP. P.C J
UPALY ABEYRATHNE, J
ANIL GOONERATNE.J
S.C. (FR) 451/2011
June 6, 2015

CONSTITUTION Selection process- Equality-Article 12 (1)- Marking Scheme of selection criteria not disclosed- Suitability- merely pleading malafides not enough ?- Failure to name parties- Is it fatal? In equality to offend principle of equalities ?-Reasonable classification ?

Petitioner holds a Bachelor's degree in Engineering from the University of Moratuwa During 02.12.1997 to 02.09.1998 Petitioner served as a Graduate Trainee and from 2004 and thereafter selected as a Training Assistant (Maintenance) in the Department of Technical Education and Training, Colombo 10 Applications were called by Gazette P6 for the post of Maintenance Engineer which post fell vacant. Petitioner complains inter-alia that he is the most suitable person to be appointed to the said post but the 7th Respondent was appointed over and above him. Petitioner complains that there was no approved selection scheme to select a suitable candidate and contends that the appointment of 7th Respondent is illegal.

Held:

1. There is no basis to fault the interview panel in allocating marks in the context of this case. All candidates had been treated equally in all respects Further three (3) other candidates were placed above the Petitioner and another obtained the same marks as the petitioner As such four others are in a better position than the Petitioner. It would be discriminatory against the three other candidates if the Petitioners argument is to be accepted, as non disclosure of the

marking scheme has not prejudiced any one or more of the candidates who were called for the interview. The Gazette Notification P6 on the other hand disclose the importance of producing the Degree Certificate, any other certificate to prove one's professional qualification and material to establish the required job experience These three aspects have attracted the highest marks to be awarded at the interview. As such, candidates who apply for the post need to be mindful of same.

2. The inequality to offend the principle of equality, must be actually and palpably unreasonable and arbitrary. A classification having some reasonable basis does not violate this principle merely because, in practice, it results in some inequality - To survive equal protection attack, the different treatment of two classes of persons must be justified by a relevant difference between them

Per Anil Gooneratne J.

'In the public service, Government servants may have to put up with unwanted situations and face difficulties in the performance of one's duties. It is not possible to draw a parallel with the selection procedure merely in the way Petitioner attempt to take cover by focusing mala fides. Selection process has been very reasonable and marks had been allocated in a fair transparent manner for all the candidates, without the Petitioner being penalized. In these circumstances Petitioner has not been successful in establishing any violation under Article 12(1) of the Constitution"

An application under Article 126 of the Constitution.

Cases referred to:

1. Deradason Vs. Union of India AIR (1964) SC 179 at 185.
2. Arkansas Gas Co. V Railway Commissions, 261 U.S. 379 at 384.
3. Lindslay Vs. Natural Carbonic Gas Co (1910) US 61 at 78,79
Sanjeewa Ranaweera for the Petitioner.
Suren Gnanaraj S.C. for the Attorney General

Cur.adv.vult.

September 17, 2015.

ANIL GOONERATNE J.

The Petitioner holds a Bachelor's Degree in Engineering (Mechanical) from the University of Moratuwa (on or about December 1995) and claims that he was qualified to be employed as a Mechanical Engineer During the period 02.12.1997 to 02.09.1998, he served the Department of Mechanical Engineering of the O

Click Here to Read the rest of this document