Colombo, Sri Lanka – 31 August 2026 – The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka has dismissed a fundamental rights application filed by a police officer, Weerakkody Arachchilge Janaka Kumara Senadheera, who alleged that his fundamental rights, specifically under Article 12(1) of the Constitution, were infringed due to his non-promotion to the rank of Chief Inspector of Police in the 2015 promotion round. The landmark judgment, delivered on August 31, 2026, by a bench comprising Chief Justice P. Padman Surasena, Justice Mahinda Samayawardena, and Justice M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne, underscores the Court’s stance on procedural integrity and the limits of judicial intervention in administrative promotion processes.
Background to the Grievance
The petitioner, Weerakkody Arachchilge Janaka Kumara Senadheera, joined the Police Department in June 1989 as a Reserve Sub-Inspector. After a series of promotions and absorption into the Regular Service, he attained the rank of Inspector of Police in the Regular Force with effect from February 1, 2006. His application arose from the 2015 promotions, where he contended that he was unfairly denied advancement to Chief Inspector due to an erroneous computation of his final score. Senadheera claimed he was entitled to additional marks based on his length of service, academic and professional qualifications, and performance at the interview.
Specifically, the petitioner argued that he was not awarded 7.5 marks for his service as an Inspector of Police in the Reserve Service (April 1998 to October 1999). He also claimed entitlement to higher marks for services in special units, good entry rewards, IG’s commendations, and President’s commendations, as well as for completed Diploma courses.
Court’s Deliberation on Marking Scheme and Service Period
The Supreme Court meticulously examined the petitioner’s claims against the applicable marking scheme and established precedents. Regarding the claim for marks based on reserve service, the Court found that this period had already been taken into account for his promotion to Inspector of Police with effect from February 1, 2006. Justice M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne, writing for the Court, stated that “to insist upon the inclusion of such service would amount to according the Petitioner preferential treatment based on a criterion not contemplated by the circular.” The judgment referenced a similar case, Egoda Weerasekarage Thilak and Others vs Nanda Mallawarachchi and Others, which held that “Permitting the same period of past service to be repeatedly relied upon for subsequent promotions would allow an infinite cycle of recognition, which is impermissible.”
Addressing the claims for additional marks on qualifications and rewards, the 8A Respondent (Act. Inspector General of Police, Mr. C.D. Wickramarathna) provided detailed explanations. These included clarifications on traffic good entries, non-recognition of Customs rewards, accurate marking for service in special units like State Intelligence, and the ineligibility for diploma course marks based on the petitioner’s own application. Furthermore, while the petitioner was entitled to 3 marks for presidential and IG commendations, these were offset by 3 marks erroneously awarded for diplomas he had not completed, making no difference to his total score. The Court also noted that “Meritorious” Medals were not recognized for marks under the prevailing scheme.
On the challenge to interview marks, the Court reiterated its principle that it would not act as a “superior interview board.” Judicial intervention in such matters is limited to instances where the process is proven to be “arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable, or vitiated by mala fides.” The Court concluded that no discrimination or gross violation of the selection process was established by the petitioner.
Critical Procedural Flaw: Non-Joinder of Parties
A significant procedural defect highlighted by the Supreme Court was the petitioner’s failure to name the police officers who were successfully promoted to the rank of Chief Inspector of Police in 2015 as respondents. Drawing again from Egoda Weerasekarage Thilak and Others vs Nanda Mallawarachchi and Others, the Court emphasized that “any relief granted in favour of the Petitioners would necessarily affect the rights, status, and seniority of those already promoted.” The non-joinder of these officers rendered the application defective, as it would deny them an opportunity to be heard on matters directly impacting their vested rights.
The Verdict
For the reasons articulated in the judgment, the Supreme Court held that Weerakkody Arachchilge Janaka Kumara Senadheera had failed to establish that his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 12(1) of the Constitution had been violated by the respondents. Consequently, the application was dismissed, with no order made as to costs.
This judgment reaffirms the Supreme Court’s commitment to upholding established administrative procedures and clarifies the stringent requirements for challenging promotion decisions in the public service, particularly regarding the proper identification of all affected parties in fundamental rights litigation.
Source: Read original document