COLOMBO, Sri Lanka – 01 October 2026 – The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka today dismissed a fundamental rights application filed by Bope Athauda Mudiyanselage Daminda Rangana Athauda, who challenged his non-appointment as a Lecturer (Probationary) at the University of the Visual and Performing Arts. The petitioner had alleged violations of his fundamental rights under Articles 12(1) (equality) and 14(1)(g) (right to engage in a lawful occupation) of the Constitution.
The three-judge bench, comprising Justices Janak De Silva, Menaka Wijesundera, and K.M.G.H. Kulatunga, delivered the judgment on 01 October 2026, concluding that the petitioner’s allegations were “frivolous and irrational” and found no merit in the claim of fundamental rights violations.
The Core of the Dispute
The case, S.C. (FR) 35/2021, centered on the petitioner’s grievance regarding his non-selection for the post of Lecturer (Probationary) for North Indian Classical Instrumental (Flute) in the Department of North Indian Music, Faculty of Music. The petitioner also challenged the appointment of the 22nd Respondent, J.A.G.N. Jayasinghe, to the said position. The post was advertised on 06 January 2019, with the practical test held on 26 November 2020, and the interview conducted online on 15 December 2020.
Petitioner’s Allegations
Represented by Upul Kumarapperuma, PC, the petitioner raised several concerns, including:
- The legality of UGC Establishment Circular Letter No. 03 of 2018.
- The lack of professional flutists on the practical test and interview panels.
- Inadequate facilities provided during the practical test.
- Insufficient time allocated for his presentation and responses at the interview.
- Improper professional evaluation of his musical talents.
- Lack of opportunity for an impromptu presentation.
- His language skills, beyond Sinhala, not being adequately assessed.
- Claims that the 22nd Respondent was unduly favored, leading to the petitioner not being suitably evaluated or awarded adequate marks.
Court’s Deliberation and Findings
The Respondents, including the University of the Visual and Performing Arts, its Vice Chancellor, various deans, governing council members, and the Registrar, represented by DSG Nirmalan Wigneswaran, initially raised a preliminary objection regarding the time bar, stating the petition was filed beyond the stipulated period. However, the Court, acknowledging the petitioner’s efforts to obtain information via the Right to Information Act (P19(i)) and complain to the Human Rights Commission, found it “not fair to apply the time bar rigidly.”
Evaluation of Specific Allegations:
- Panel Qualifications: The Court accepted the Respondents’ submission that the panels for practical tests comprised professional academics with expertise in North Indian Classical Music (Raag-based tradition), not limited to a specific instrument like the flute. The petitioner’s claim was deemed “without any merit.”
- Interview Process: The Respondents presented a recording (X2) confirming the petitioner was given approximately 19 minutes and 25 seconds for his interview, contrary to his claim of inadequate time.
- Professional Evaluation: The Court noted that the interview board consisted of qualified members as per UGC Circular No. 166, including senior professors, deans, and eminent artists. The judgment underscored that academic evaluation is a matter of discretion for the interview board, which should not be questioned by those not involved in the process.
- Mark Sheet Analysis (R7): A detailed review of the mark sheet revealed no discrimination. For instance, the petitioner, despite having only a three-year basic degree, received marks generally allocated for a four-year First Class degree. The 22nd Respondent, holding an M. Phil. with research, appropriately received higher marks for his postgraduate qualification and teaching experience, having served as a Temporary Lecturer for three years. Both candidates received equal marks for research and publications.
The overall marks showed the 22nd Respondent scoring 71.7 marks compared to the petitioner’s 56.1 marks, clearly indicating a higher score for the appointed candidate.
Judicial Precedent and Conclusion
Justice Menaka Wijesundera, in her judgment, referred to established legal principles concerning judicial review of academic decisions. Citing cases such as Clark v. University of Lincolnshire and Humberside and Abeysundara Mudiyanselage Sarath Weera Bandara v. University of Colombo and Others, the Court reiterated its reluctance to interfere with academic or pastoral judgments unless they are “demonstrably illegal, arbitrary and unconscionable.” While acknowledging the Supreme Court’s power to examine alleged fundamental rights violations in academic establishments (as affirmed in Dr. Karunananda v. Open University of Sri Lanka and Others), the Court found no such grounds in the present application.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the material presented by the petitioner lacked merit and found no violation of Articles 12(1) or 14(1)(g) of the Constitution by the respondents. The application was therefore dismissed.
Source: Read original document