KANAPATHIPILLI VS. SRI LANKA BROADCASTING
CORPORATION AND OTHERS

SUPREME COURT
DR. SHIRANI BANDARANAYAKE. J.
AMARATUNAGAJ.
BALAPATABENDI. J.
SC 145/2007
DECEMBER 4. 2008
JANUARY 22,2009

Constitution - Art 12 (1), 17, 126 - Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to grant reliefs or give directions. Concept of equality - equals and unequals.

The petitioner programme producer of the 1st respondent Corporation alleged that the appointment of the 4th respondent to the post of Director Tamil Service was illegal and thereby had violated Art 12(1) of the Contitution. It was the contention of the petitioner that the 4th respondent was disqualified from being re-employed in the public service in terms of Administrative Circular 44/90, and that out of the eligible candidates he had scored the highest marks.

The respondent contended that, the Corporation was unaware of the circumstances of the 4th respondent's retirement from public service and that the interviews were held over two years ago and a long duration of time had passed since the holding of the said interview, and that the petitioner had obtained only 42 marks out of hundred which does not reflect an extremely high degree of competence.

Held

(1) The concept of equality,. which is a dynamic concept is based on the principle that the status and dignity of all persons should be protected whilst preventing inequalities, unfairness and arbitrariness.

(2) Democracy is founded on the principle that each individual has equal value. Treating some as automatically having less value than

    others not only causes pain and distress to that person but also violates his or her dignity as a human being.

(3) There should not be any discrimination between persons, who are equally circumstanced; equals should not be placed unequally and at the same time unequals should not be treated as equals. Equal opportunity is only for equals who are similarly circumstanced in life.

Per Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake. J.

    "It is apparent that the 4th respondent should not have been summoned for the interview as he was disqualified in terms of Administrative Circular. The petitioner and
     the 4th respondent cannot be treated as equals and out of the two applicants it is only the petitioner who was qualified to be considered for the post of Director 
    Tamil Services".

(4) Fundamental rights, which represent the basic values cherished by the people, would become meaningless if there are no remedies or no independent machinery for their enforcement. The Constitution had made provision for remedies in terms of Article 17 read with Article 126. The provisions laid down in Article 126 are very clear wherein the Supreme Court could grant such relief or make such directions as it may deem just and equitable in the circumstances of the application in question.

APPLICATION under Article 126 of the Constitution.

Cases referred to:-

(1) Ghaidan vs. Godin Mendoza 2004 2 AC 557

(2) Maneka Ghandhi vs. Union of India 1978 AIR SC 597

(3) Karunatilaka vs. Jayalath de Silva SC 334/2003 SCM25.11.2002

(4) M. K. Wijetunga et al vs, The Principal, Southlands College SC 612/2004 SCM 17.11.2005

(5) Asanka Pathiratne vs. University Grants Commission SC 618/2002 SCM 5.8.2003

(6) Anushka Jayatileke vs. University Grants Commission SC 280/2001 SCM 25.10.2004

(7) Nazir vs. Post Master General SC 251/96 SCM 7.5.1998
 

(8) Perera vs. Jayaratne SC 8/96 SCM 5.3.1998

(9) Ratnadasa vs. Government Agent SC Sp166/96-SCM 16.12.1997

(10) Samarasinghe vs. Air Lanka and others 1996 1 Sri LR 259.

J. C. Weliamuna for petitioner.
Shaheeda Barrie SC for the 1st 2nd, 3rdand 5th respondents.
Nizam Karaipper for 4th respondent.

Cur.adv. vult.

March 30, 2009
DR. SHIRANI BANDARANA YAKE, J.

    The petitioner was a Programme Producer attached to the Education Service of the 1st respondent Corporation at the time of the filing of this application. The petitioner allege