Fundamental Rights Applications filed by Development Officers seeking absorbtion to teacher service dismissed by the Supreme Court
View(s):The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the four Fundamental Rights Applications filed by a group of Development Officers challenging the Government’s decision to recruit graduates presently in government service to the Sri Lanka Teacher Service.
The Ministry of Education had published a Gazette Notification on 27.01.2023 calling for applications from graduates presently employed in the government service who fulfil the requirements contained therein and had scheduled a competitive examination for 19.03.2023.
Upon these applications being supported, the Supreme Court had granted leave to proceed and also a stay order preventing the said examination from being held.
The Petitioners had submitted applications in 2020, following an advertisement calling for applications from unemployed graduates to undergo training in eleven fields including Rural and Estate schools for a period of one year for a monthly payment of Rs.20,0000. Those who had been selected had been given training and subsequently appointed to the government service as Development Officers.
Counsel for the Petitioners argued that when they submitted applications to undergo training in Rural and Estate Schools, their expectation was that they would be recruited as teachers and further that since they were assigned the task of teaching in these schools, the government had created in them a legitimate expectation that they would be absorbed into the government service as teachers without having to undergo training at any training College and without having to sit any examination.
They further stated that there had been instances in the past where Development Officers had been absorbed as teachers without having to sit an examination and as such they too were entitled to be absorbed as teachers without a requirement to sit an exam.
It was further submitted by counsel that the Cabinet had initially decided to absorb them as teachers and that subsequent decisions by the Cabinet to change such decisions was irrational and arbitrary and that the Petitioners’ legitimate expectation had been breached and that they were entitled to be recruited to the teacher service without having to sit any exam. They argued that the Gazette Notification and any Cabinet Decisions to recruit teachers by having a competitive examination should be quashed.
Solicitor General Viraj Dayaratne PC who appeared for the Respondents pointed out that the Notice calling for applications had not indicated that any of the applicants would be granted employment in any particular post and what was promised initially was only training in eleven different fields.
Even as far as estate and rural schools were concerned, there was no mention at all that they would be granted an opportunity to teach. He further pointed out that at the time they were given appointment as Development Officers, some of the letters of appointment had specifically pointed out that they should not entertain any expectation that they would be granted teaching appointments in the future on account of their having been engaged in teaching during the period of training.
Mr.V.K.Choksy PC representing intervenient Petitioners comprising of a group of Development Officers who wanted to sit the exam and seeking employment as teachers also made submissions moving that the cases be dismissed.
After the conclusion of submissions by all counsel court delivered its unanimous judgment from the bench. Court observed that the Notice calling for applications from unemployed graduates did not promise the applicants any particular post in the government service as teachers and that infact the documents submitted by the Petitioners themselves established the fact that some of the Petitioners had been given training at Divisional Secretariats and pointed out that they had failed to aver in their Petitions and Affidavits that they entertained any legitimate expectation to be absorbed as teachers.
Court recognised the importance of teachers having to be trained and that the mere fact of engaging in teaching under this scheme would not fulfill the requirement of training and expressed the view that sitting for a competitive examination and fulfilling other requirements cannot be dispensed with.
Court also observed that there were those who had undergone training at other institutions and pointed out the situation that would arise if they too made a demand that they be absorbed to certain positions in those institutions without the requisite qualifications.
Court held that that there had been no legitimate expectation created by the State that the Petitioners would be directly absorbed as teachers. Court went on to state that the Cabinet was entitled to decide on policy depending on the circumstances and that the decision of the Cabinet to pursue recruitment of graduates presently in government service was not arbitrary or irrational and observed that there was valid justification in the Cabinet Memorandum for its proposal. Accordingly Court dismissed all four cases. With regard to the age of candidates entitled to apply to sit the exam, court took notice of the Cabinet Decision taken in February this year and recognised that it could be 45 years.
Attorneys-at-Law Nuwan Bopage, Shaheeda Barrie, Amila Perera and Chandana Wijeysooriya with several others appeared for the Petitioners.
Solicitor General Viraj Dayaratne PC with Senior State Counsel Hashini Opatha, State Counsel Madusha Thanippuliarachchi and State Counsel Nayanthara Balapatabendi appeared for the Respondents.
V.K.Choksy PC with Natasha Alexander appeared for the Intervenient Petitioners. (RP)
HitAd.lk is the best and biggest mobile phone market in Sri Lanka, and we guarantee you will find what you need here from our extensive listing of mobile phones for sale in Sri Lanka. Whether it’s a budget-priced smartphone for communication, or higher end features with advanced connectivity, there are many different options from which to choose from on our site!