Ca/Writ/0440/2014
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for mandates in the nature of writs of Certiorari and Mandamus under and in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. CASE NO: CA/WRIT/0440/2014 Senadheerage Hesandu Dilsara, No. 140/2, Saranapala Himi Mawatha, Borella, Colombo 08. Appearing by: Senadheerage Sujeewa Rajaratne, No. 140/2, Saranapala Himi Mawatha, Borella, Colombo 08. PETITIONER VS. 1. Upali Gunasekara, The Principal, Royal College, Reid Avenue, Colombo 07. 1A. B. A. Abeyrathna, The Principal, Royal College, Reid Avenue, Colombo 07. Page 1 of 25 2. Kithsiri Liyanagamage, Principal, Ananda College, Colombo 10. And also, Chairman, Appeals and Protest Board, Grade 1 Admission, Royal College, Colombo 07. 3. S. D. Keerthisena, Deputy Principal, Royal College, Colombo 07. 4. Manju Ariyaratne, Representative, Royal College Union, c/o: Royal College, Colombo 07. 5. The Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Pelawatta, Battaramulla. RESPONDENTS Before: M. T. MOHAMMED LAFFAR, J. & K. K. A. V. SWARNADHIPATHI, J. Counsel: Manohara de Silva, P.C. with Anusha N. Perusinghe for the Petitioner. Priyantha Nawanna, P.C., A.S.G. for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 5th Respondents. Rajeev Amarasuriya for the 4th Respondent. Page 2 of 25 Written Submissions on: 29.10.2019 (by the Petitioner). 17.09.2019 (by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 5th Respondents). 15.10.2019 & 24.01.2020 (by the 4th Respondent). Argued on: 27.01.2021. Decided on: 17.03.2021. MOHAMMED LAFFAR, J. 1. The Petitioner in this application has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 140 of the Constitution seeking the discretionary remedies of writs of certiorari and mandamus. 2. The Petitioner is a minor and therefore makes this application, appearing by his next friend, his father Senadheerage Sujeewa Rajaratne. 3. After filing their respective statements of objection, the Respondents have moved that this court should in the first instance decide on the preliminary objections as to the maintainability of this application for judicial review and written submissions have been tendered expatiating on the preliminary objections. 4. For purposes of fully comprehending the scope of the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the Respondents, the factual matrix surrounding the basis of this application repays attention. Factual matrix 5. In response to a circular No. 23/2013 dated 23.05.2013 (marked as ‘P1’) published by the 5th Respondent-Secretary, Ministry of Education, the Petitioner had submitted to the 1st Respondent- Principal of Royal College, Colombo 07, an application dated 07.06.2013 (marked as ‘P2’) seeking admission to Grade 1 of Royal College for the year 2014. Page 3 of 25 The application had been presented under the 'children of residents in close proximity to the school’ category. [According to the 'Guidelines/Instructions and Regulations regarding admission of children to Grade 1’ which is a component of the afore-stated 'Notification' entitled 'Instructions related to admission of children to Grade One in the Government Schools for the Year 2014' issued by the 5th Respondent, 50% of children of the maximum number of students who may be selected for Grade 1, should be selected from the ‘Children of residents in close proximity to the school’ category - vide Clause 6.0 (a) 1 of P1.] 6. In the said application presented to the 1st Respondent - Principal of Royal College, Colombo 07, the Petitioner had taken up the position that, he together with his family, including her wife and the children are resident at No. 9/1A/1/1, Gomez Path, Havelock Town, Colombo 05, the same being approximately 650 meters distance from Royal College, Colombo 07. 7. In response to the aforesaid application for admission to Royal College, the Petitioner had been called for an interview which was subsequently held on 17.08.2013. At the interview, in support of their application, the Petitioner and the applicant (i.e., Petitioner’s Father) had tendered for examination several documents – P4 to P7 to the Interview Panel (chaired by the 1st Respondent) which were required by the 1st Respondent. 8. According to the Petitioner, following the interview held on 17.08.2013, at which the afore-stated documents had been examined, the application for admission to Royal College, Colombo, presented by the Petitioner had received the following marks: Page 4 of 25 Criteria Maximum Marks awarded to marks the Petitioner Clause 6.1.I-Residence 35 35 Clause 6.1.II-Documents in proof of place of residence 10 04 Clause 6.1.III-Additional documents in proof of place 05 01 of residence Clause 6.1.IV-Proximity to the school from the place of 50 20 residence Total 100 60 9. Based on the marks received for each category, the application of the Petitioner had received a total of 60 marks out of a maximum of 100, which is below the purported cut off point 64 marks and was therefore placed on the waiting list. 10. The Petitioner states that under Clause 6.1. IV in the above table, the Petitioner has been awarded 20 marks, having deducted 30 marks (i.e., 05 marks for each school) for the following six schools which purportedly exist with primary sections that the Petitioner could be admitted to between Royal College, Colombo 07, and the Petitioner’s place of residence: 1. Thurstan College, Colombo 07 2. Isipathana Vidyalaya, Colombo 05 3. Vidyathilaka Vidyalaya, Colombo 05 4. St. Mary’s Sinhala Vidyalaya, Colombo 05 5. Lumbini Vidyalaya, Colombo 05 6. Dudley Senanayake Vidyalaya, Colombo 05 11. However, the Petitioner states that as demonstrated by letter dated 15.08.2013 (marked as ‘P9’), the Principal of Dudley Senanayake Vidyalaya, Colombo 05 has stated that the said school would not be admitting children to Grade 1 for the year 2014 since the said school is undergoing development under the National Programme for developing Page 5 of 25 a Thousand Secondary Schools. The Petitioner, by appending document P11, further submits that the Ministry of Education on 13.05.2013 issued a letter, inter alia, directing that schools which are to undergo development in terms of the National Programme for developing a Thousand Secondary Schools should not take steps in respect of Grade 1 admissions for the year 2014. 12. It is in these circumstances, the Petitioner submits that deducting 05 marks for Dudley Senanayake Vidyalaya, Colombo 05 is illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and ultra vires the provisions of the circular P1 as the said school cannot be considered as a “Government School with primary section between the school applied to and the place of residence”. 13. Against the decision of the 1st Respondent to award the Petitioner only 60 marks having deducted 05 marks for Dudley Senanayake Vidyalaya, Colombo 05 as aforesaid, the Petitioner submitted an appeal dated 20.10.2013 to the Appeals and Protest Board consisting of the 2nd to 4th Respondents together with two others through the 1st Respondent. 14. Consequently, by letter dated 07.11.2013 (marked as ‘P12-b’), the Petitioner’s father was called to be present before the said Appeals and Protest Board on 30.11.2013. According to the Petitioner, at the hearing, the Petitioner’s contention with regard to Dudley Senanayake Vidyalaya, Colombo 05 was accepted by the members of the Appeals Board and therefore the Petitioner was assured that the said error would be rectified. 15. However, when the final list of selectees for Grade 1 admission at Royal College, Colombo 07 was displayed on the school Notice Board, the Petitioner was once again placed on the waiting list, at No. 16 having purportedly scored only 60 marks. The Petitioner further states that the cut-off point on the final list too remained at 64 marks. Page 6 of 25 Appeal to the 5th Respondent, Secretary of Ministry of Education in terms of 11.10 of P1 16. The Petitioner submits that, being dissatisfied with the Interview Panel and the Appeals and Protest Board to award the Petitioner only 60 marks notwithstanding the matters placed before the Appeals Board, on 29.12.2013 he made an appeal to the 5th Respondent, the Secretary, Ministry of Education in terms of clause 11.10 of P1. 17. The Petitioner further states that in response to the aforesaid appeal to the 5th Respondent, the Petitioner is aware that a committee was appointed to inquire into the same and based on its findings the 5th Respondent by his letter dated 20.02.2014 (marked as ‘P18’) directed the 1st Respondent to admit the Petitioner into Grade 1 of Royal College, Colombo 07. 18. However, the Petitioner states that, despite numerous visits to meet the 1st Respondent subsequent to receiving P18, the 1st Respondent has refused or failed to comply with the direction made by the 5th Respondent as reflected in P18 and in the circumstances the Petitioner has not been admitted to Grade 1 of Royal College, Colombo to date. It is further revealed from the Petition that, due to the said refusal or failure of the 1st Respondent, the Petitioner dispatched two letters dated 13.03.2014 and 21.04.2014 to the 5th Respondent, bringing to his notice such refusal or failure of the 1st Respondent to admit the Petitioner to Grade 1 as directed by the 5th Respondent. These letters have been marked as P19-a and P19-b by the Petitioner. 19. The Petitioner further submits that, on or around 27.12.2013 he made a complaint to the Human Rights Commission against, inter alia, the aforesaid decision of the 1st to 4th Respondents to place the Petitioner on the waiting list by awarding the Petitioner only 60 marks.