Colombo, 30 September 2026 – The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka today dismissed a fundamental rights application filed by three Public Health Inspectors (PHIs) from the Western Province, who challenged the validity of a revised promotion process and seniority lists for the Supra Grade. The landmark judgment, delivered by Justice Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna with the concurrence of Justices Janak De Silva and Arjuna Obeyesekere, affirmed the rationality of the administrative decisions made by the Provincial Public Service Commission and other respondents.
Background to the Grievance
The case, titled G. S. Karunathilake and Others v. Dr. Dammika Jayalath and Others (SC/FRA/321/2019), involved three petitioners who were Public Health Inspectors promoted to Grade I and subsequently absorbed into the Provincial Public Service of the Western Province. Their core grievance stemmed from the promotion process to the Supra Grade. The petitioners contended that an initial interview held on 10 October 2016, based on an approved Seniority List (P15), should have led to their promotions. They were placed at the 3rd, 7th, and 9th positions respectively on that list.
However, the results of the 2016 interview were never released, and no appointments were made. Instead, new draft and revised seniority lists emerged, which the petitioners disputed as erroneous and unapproved. In 2019, the respondents called for fresh applications and conducted another interview on 26 September 2019, disregarding the earlier process. This decision became the crux of the petitioners’ fundamental rights challenge.
Petitioners’ Assertions of Fundamental Rights Violation
Represented by Rasika Dissanayake and Shabber Huzair with Dewni Kaluarachchi, the petitioners argued that the decision to call for fresh applications and disregard the 2016 process, along with Seniority List P15, was arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, unfair, illegal, and ultra vires. They claimed a legitimate expectation that promotions would be based on P15 and the results of the 2016 interview. Furthermore, they alleged that a subsequent seniority list (P43) was introduced to favour certain trade union office bearers, violating their rights to equality and equal protection under Articles 12(1), 12(2), and their right under Article 14(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Respondents’ Counter-Arguments
Deputy Solicitor General Ganga Wakishta Arachchi, representing the respondents, countered that seniority lists for Public Health Inspectors are subject to ongoing revision and updates. They asserted that no appointments were made after the 2016 interview, and the subsequent decision to call for fresh applications in 2019 was rational and reasonable, given the passage of several years and potential changes in officers’ circumstances. The respondents also highlighted the petitioners’ participation in the 2019 application and interview process, arguing this constituted acquiescence and that they could not “approbate and reprobate” the same matter.
Crucially, the respondents contended that the reliefs sought by the petitioners were misconceived, as P15 and P43 had been superseded by a reformulated and current Seniority List, R6, prepared in 2022 after considering various views, including those of the petitioners. Finally, the respondents raised a decisive preliminary objection: the application was time-barred under Article 126(2) of the Constitution, as the challenge to the failure of the 2016 process was initiated more than two years and ten months after the alleged failure.
Supreme Court’s Deliberation and Ruling
In its comprehensive judgment, the Supreme Court addressed the central question: whether the respondents’ decision to initiate a fresh promotion process in 2019, despite the 2016 interview, violated the petitioners’ fundamental rights under Article 12(1). The Court made several key determinations:
- Immutability of Seniority Lists: Justice Rajakaruna emphasized that a seniority list for public service is not static and can be revised when legitimate administrative considerations, such as identified discrepancies and representations from officers, require correction or updating. Therefore, P15 did not acquire an immutable character.
- Unconcluded 2016 Process: The Court noted that the 2016 interview did not culminate in any appointments, meaning no accrued legal right could be claimed by the petitioners based on that process.
- Rationality of Fresh Process: The lapse of several years and the ongoing revisions of seniority lists provided a rational and reasonable explanation for the decision to commence a fresh process in 2019, negating claims of arbitrariness.
- Petitioners’ Acquiescence: The Court found significant the petitioners’ voluntary participation in the 2019 application and interview process. This conduct undermined their subsequent challenge to the very process they engaged in.
- Allegations of Mala Fides: The Court found no sufficient material to conclude that the preparation or use of revised seniority lists, including P43/R4, was motivated by an intention to favour particular trade union office bearers. Endorsements by trade union representatives on the list suggested otherwise.
- Time-Barred Claim: Crucially, the Court held that the petitioners’ principal grievance concerning the failure to release the results of the 2016 interview and make promotions based on P15 was time-barred. The subsequent events in 2019 could not revive a claim that had already exceeded the constitutional limitation period.
Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners, at the hearing, had expressed agreement to promotions being effected based on the seniority reflected in R6, the currently operative Seniority List. This acknowledgment, while not changing the Court’s fundamental finding on the time-bar and lack of rights violation, was a relevant consideration.
Conclusion
For these reasons, the Supreme Court concluded that the petitioners failed to establish that the respondents acted arbitrarily, irrationally, unreasonably, or contrary to the principles of equality guaranteed by Article 12(1) of the Constitution. The application was therefore dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Source: Read original document