Back
GAMINI SENADEERA AND 23 OTHERS V. COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF LABOUR AND 3 OTHERS
2013 SLR 1 60
GAMINI SENADEERA AND 23 OTHERS V. COMMISSIONER
GENERAL OF LABOUR AND 3 OTHERS
SUPREME COURT
SRIPAVAN, J.
EKANAYAKE, J., AND
DEP, P.C., J
F.R. APPLICATION NO.620/2010
FEBRUARY 27TH 2013
Constitution - Article 12(1)
- All persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of
the law
The Petitioners are holding the post of Labour Officer, Grade II in the
Department of Labour with effect from 01.07.2010. The Petitioners contended that
successful candidates under the Open Competitive Examination were appointed to
the post of Labour Officer, Grade II with effect from 18.02.2008, whereas, the
petitioners who were selected on the Limited Competitive Examination were
appointed to the same post with effect from 01.07.2010 .
Accordingly, the scope of this application is whether the impugned date of
appointment namely, 01.07.2010 be ante - dated to 18.02.2008.
The crux of the matter in issue is whether the candidates selected through the
Open Competitive Examination were similarly circumstanced as that of the
candidates selected based on the Limited Competitive Examination.
Held:
(1) The right to equality means that among equals, the law should be equal and
should be equally administered, thereby like should be treated alike.
(2) The State is free to decide the sources from which recruitments to the
Public Service are to be made. Once selections are made, they cannot
thereafter be treated differently for the purposes of their future promotions,
that their genetic blemishes disappear once
61.
they are integrated into a common class known as Labour Officer, Grade II.
(3) The Petitioners who sat for the Limited Competitive Examination cannot be
clubbed together with those who sat for the Open Competitive Examination.
(4) The Petitioners have not been successful in establishing that their
fundamental rights guaranteed in terms of Article 12(1) of the Constitution had
been violated.
Cases referred to:
1. Ramupillai v. Festus Perera, Minister of Public Administration, Provincial
Councils and Home Affairs - 1991 1 SLR 11
2. Perera v. University Grants Commission - F R D vol. (1) 103.
APPLICATION under Article 126 of the Constitution
M. U. M. Ali Sabry P.C. , with Kasun Premaratne and Lasantha
Thirana gama for the Petitioners
Rajiv Goonathilake, SSC for the 1st to 4th Respondents.
Cur.adv.vult.
May 07, 2013
SRIPAVAN, J.
The Petitioners are presently holding the post of Labour Officer, Grade II in
the Department of Labour with effect from 01.07.2010. The Petitioners state that
this application relates to the relevant date of the appointment given to them
as Labour Officers, Grade II wherein they contend that the said appointments
shall be backdated with retrospective effect from 18.02.2008. Thus, the scope of
this application as pointed out by the Petitioners is whether the impugned date
of appointment, namely, 01.07.2010 be ante-dated to 18.02.2008. In fact, in
Paragraph (d) of the prayer to the
62.
Petition dated 10.11.2010 the
Petitioners seek an order to have their appointments backdated to 01.02.2008
with a two year grace period to complete the Efficiency Bar Examinations.
Leave to proceed was granted by this Court on 24.01.2012 for the alleged
violation of Article 12(1) of the Constitution, even though the Petitioners
contended that their appointments made in terms of the Gazette Notification 1473
dated 24.11.2006 violated Articles 12(1) and 14(1) of the Constitution.
In terms of the aforesaid Gazette Notification, applications for the post of
Labour Officer, Grade II was called by the 1st Respondent to fill 50%
of the vacancies by Limited Competitive Examination and the balance 50% by way
of an Open Competitive Examination. The Petitioners contended that successful
candidates under the Open Competitive Examination were appointed to the post of
Labour Officer, Grade II with effect from 18.02.2008, wherea
