LAKSITH AND ANOTHER V CHAIRMAN, SCHOOL COMMITTEE, DHARMASOKA VIDYALAYA, AMBALANGODA AND OTHERS

LAKSITH AND ANOTHER V. CHAIRMAN, SCHOOL
COMMITTEE, DHARMASOKA VIDYALAYA, AMBALANGODA
AND OTHERS

COURT OF APPEAL
SATHYA HETTIGE PC J (P/CA)
GOONERATNE ,J.
CA 270/2008
FEBRUARY 2, 26, 2009
APRIL 29, 2009
MAY 6,2009

Writ of certiorari/mandamus - School admission - Applicable Circular - Two categories - Taking into account irrelevant circumstances - Right to admit a child to a school - Public duty? Irrational - Unreasonable malice?

The respondent school did not admit the 10' petitioner to Grade 1. The petitioner contended that marks were not given for their residence within the feeder area of the school, and that the non admission is contrary to the governing Circular. The petitioner further contended  that such non-selection is irrational, unreasonable and painted with malice.

Held:

(1) The guidelines for admission of students to government schools for 2008 were in terms of Circular No. 2007/16. This Circular contemplates admission of two categories (1) Residence within the feeder area and convenience to parents and child (2) children of past pupils. The petitioner comes under (1) - being the feeder area.

(2) There is material placed before Court to stress the point of view regarding residence within the feeder area and such material indicates that the petitioner/parents as well as his grand parents were all residents in Ambalangoda.

Held further:

(1) Question of chief occupant and non production of a deed, do not come within the purview of the Circular, the petitioner need to establish residence and not title. The requirement in the Circular does not rely on deeds or chief occupancy.

(2) No administrative body can take into account irrelevant circumstances and extraneous matters into account. If it does so writ of certiorari would lie. The Appeal Panel has traveled outside the record and the Circular to finally decide the question of residence.

Per Anil Gooneratne, J.

"Education is one of the most important aspects in any Civilized Society as such authorities concerned are under a public duty to ensure and grant the right to admit a child to a school (if possible of his choice) if the admission requirements are fulfilled."

APPLICATION for Writs of Certiorari/ Mandamus.

Cases referred to:

1. R. u. Birmingham Appeal Tribunal-1952 - 2 All ER 100

2. Edward v. Bairstow - 1956 - AC - 14

3. SCFR -10 -13 -2007

4. Dissanayake v. Kulatilleke - 59 NLR 310

5. Brown v. Board of Education - Topika - 347 US 483

A. Jayawardene with G. S. C. Bandara for petitioners

Janak de Silva SSC for 1st ,2nd, 10th , 12th , and 13th respondents.

Cur.adv. vult

September 02, 2009

ANIL GOONERATNE J.

    This is a writ application and the 2nd Petitioner made an application for the admission of his son the 1st Petitioner to Grade 1 of Dharmashoka College,Ambalangoda for the year 2008. Writ of Certiorari and Mandamus is sought in terms of the prayer to the Petition and mainly for the following relief:

1. For an order in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the decision of the 1st to 10th Respondents not to admit the 1st Petitioner to Grade 1 of Dharmashoka College, Ambalangoda;

2. For an order in the nature of Writ of Mandamus compelling the Respondents to admit the 1st Petitioner to the corresponding Grade at Dharmashoka College, Ambalangoda as at the final determination of this application.

    The guidelines for admission of students to Government schools for the year 2008 were in terms of circular No. 2007/ 16 (P2). Circular P2 contemplates admission of two categories viz (1) Residence within the feeder area and convenience to parents and child (2) Children of past pupils. The Petitioner rely on the above category (I), being the feeder area.

    The main complaint of the Petitioner is that marks were not given for their residence within the feeder area of the school in question, and it is urged that non-admission of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document