035-SLLR-SLLR-2006-V-3-WANNIGAM-vs.-INCORPORATED-COUNCIL-OF-LEGAL-EDUCATION-AND-OTHERS.pdf
CA
Wannigama Vs Incorporated Council of Legal Education and others 287
WANNIGAMAVSINCORPORATED COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION AND OTHERSCOURT OF APPEAL.
SRISKANDARAJAH. J.
CA 588/2006.
OCTOBER 31,2006.
NOVEMBER 13, 14, 21,27, 2006.
DECEMBER 6, 2006.
Writ of Certiorari-Rules of the Council of Legal Education-Candidates tobe selected for admission on their performance at the EntranceExamination and the number of vacancies-Marks granted to Tamil Mediumstudents at an interview- Selection thereafter – Do the Rules provide forsuch procedure? – Admitting of reasonable number of students to theTamil Medium intra vires ? Necessity – Severability of the decision •legitimate expectation.
The petitioner who sat in the Sinhala Medium for the Law EntranceExamination obtained 66 marks. The cut off mark was 69. Four studentswho sat the examination in the Tamil Medium complained to the SupremeCourt that only one candidate has been selected from the Tamil Medium,and sought a rescrutiny of their papers. The Commissioner General ofExaminations was not agreeable. Thereafter the Principal, Law College –
288
Sri Lanka Law Reports
(2006) 3 Sri L R
3rd respondent called certain students-Tamil Medium – for an interviewand the interview panel recommended 11 candidates to be admitted tothe Law College.
The Petitioner contended that, marks cannot be granted at an interviewfor admission as it is not provided by the Rules, and further contendedthat if 11 candidates had been admitted according to the marks obtained,she ought to have been admitted as she would definitely fall within thefirst 11 candidates in order of merit.
The respondents contended that,
When the full list of candidates who are entitled for admission wasproduced it was revealed that only one student was being admittedto follow lectures in the Tamil Medium, and
As there was an alleged discrepancy in the question paper, aCommittee was appointed for the purpose of identifying studentswho had been prejudiced by the alleged discrepancy in the questionpaper and awarding them necessary marks to off set the prejudicecaused, and to select students to meet the object of the need ofAttorneys-at-Law in the Northern and Eastern Provinces. It wasfurther contended that marks would be given to the interviewee ifhe has been genuinely misled in comprehending the relevantquestions and forming the correct answer and that it transpiredthat the relevant interviewee is likely to upon enrolment proceed tothe North and East Provinces to practice the law in such area.
The decision to give additional marks to students who couldgenuinely point out the alleged discrepancy is a subjective test. Itdiffers from candidate to candidate.
HELD:
Per Sriskandarajah. J :
“I do not know how a committee could determine the intention of acandidate, where the candidate will practice after passing out. Evenif a candidate gives a declaration that he/she will practice in the
CA Wannigama Vs Incorporated Council of Legal Education and others 289
(Sriskandarajah J,)
Northern and Eastern Provinces can it be accepted to giveadmission to one candidate and deny admission to another”.
It is illogical and unreasonable to give marks on the aforesaidbasis. The Incorporated Council of Legal Education has no poweror authority to add additional marks to a candidate by an interview.
The second basis on which the Council admitted the said 11students was by giving additional marks to the alleged discrepancyin the main question after forming an opinion that the intervieweehad been genuinely misled in comprehending the relevant questionand forming the correct answer to the relevant question. The secondbasis under which the marks were added to make the candidateeligible for admission, through an interview process is illogicaland ultra vires-this basis cannot be relied upon to make a validdecision to admit a candidate to Law College.
HELD FURTHER:
When a person/body makes a decision based on two independentbasis one could be severable from the other and as one basis isnot justifiable and the other is justifiable, the decision could standas it was made on a valid justifiable basis.
The decision to admit 11 more candidates to the Tamil Mediumand anually admit a reasonable number of students to the TamilMedium-is intra vires and justifiable and is validly made. – the firstbasis.
HELD FURTHER:
As the Council is empowered under the rules to determine thevacancies in the Sri Lanka Law College depending on the need ofattorneys-at-law and the resources available in Law College, theCouncil is empowered to determine the number of vacanciescumulatively in the Sinhala and Tamil Medium or to determine thenumber of vacancies separately in the Sinhala Medium and TamilMedium.
290
Sri Lanka Law Reports
(2006) 3 Sri L R.
The petitioner has sat the examination in the Sinhala Medium, andtherefore is not entitled to get admission in the Tamil Medium,Therefore the petitioner cannot seek admission under the.additional intake of 11 candidates to the Tamil Medium of the LawCollege. The petitioner has therefore no legitimate expectation ora legal right to seek admission on the marks obtained by her.
APPLICATION for a Writ of Certiorari.
Cases referred to :•
Premachandra and Dodangoda vs. Jayawickrama and BakeerMarker and others 1993 2 Sri LR 294 at 308
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. vs. WednesburyCorporation – (1948) 1 KB 223.
Warington U. in Short vs. Poole Corporation
Padfield vs. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food-1908 A1997
Breen vs. Amalgamated Engineering Union 1971 2QB 175 at 190
M.A. Sumanthiran with Viran Corea, Harsana Vamadeva and U. A.Razee for petitioner
Yasantha Kodagoda DSG for 1-3 respondents.
N.R. Sivendran with C. R. Rasheed and P. J. Janangan for 4threspondent.
A. R. Surendran PC with K. V. S. Ganaesharajah and N. Kandeepanfor 7-17 respondents.
Cur. adv. vult.
December 13,2006SRISKANDARAJAHJ.
The Petitioner is a candidate who sat in Sinhala Medium for theLaw Entrance Examination held on 1st October, 2005 and obtained 66
CA Wannigama Vs Incorporated Council of Legal Education and others 291
(Sriskandarajah J.)
marks, for admission into the Sri Lanka Law College to follow thecourse for admission as an Attorney at Law of the Supreme Court. The1 st Respondent is the Incorporated Council of Legal Education of SriLanka incorporated by Ordinance No. 2 of 1900. The said Law EntranceExamination was conducted as provided by the Rules of the Councilof Legal Education. The relevant Rule that was published in the GazetteNotification No. 1003/1 dated 24th November 1997 is marked as P7.The Rule 23 (3) titled Entrance Examination is sub rule (vi) provides:
‘Candidates shall be selected for admission to the SriLanka Law College in the order of merit based on theirperformance at the Entrance Examination and the numberof vacancies available as determined by the Council. Providedno candidate who has obtained less than forty percentumof the maximum marks shall be selected for admission".
Based on the Rules of admission the cut – off marks for the SriLanka Law College Entrance for the year 2005 was determined as 69and 235 candidates were selected. The Petitioner submitted that shehas become aware that four students who sat for the examination inthe Tamil medium and had obtained above a particular mark had filedfundamental rights applications alleging that only one candidate hasbeen selected from the Tamil Medium for the year 2006 from the saidexamination. They sought a re-scrutiny of their papers and the SupremeCourt directed the Senior State Counsel to ascertain whether theCommissioner General of Examinations is agreeable to re-scrutinizethe papers and she reliably understands that the Commissioner Generalof Examinations had declined to re-correct the answer scripts.Thereafter the 3rd Respondent by letter dated 1 st March 2006, calledcertain students to be present at the Department of the AttorneyGeneral for an interview in relation to admission to Sri Lanka LawCollege. The Petitioner submitted that she came to know that of 21candidates who were called for the interview, 11 candidates, namelythe 7th to 17th Respondents had been admitted to Sri Lanka LawCollege. The Petitioner contended that if 11 candidates had beenadmitted to Sri Lanka Law College according to the marks obtained atthe law entrance examination which is the determining criterion foradmission, she ought to have been admitted as she would definitely
292
Sri Lanka Law Reports
(2006) 3 Sri L R.
fall within the first 11 candidates in order of merit. The Petitioner furthercontended that marks cannot be granted at an interview for admissionof students to the Law College which is not provided by the Rules ofthe 1st Respondent and admissions of students in consideration ofmarks awarded at an interview is flawed by procedural and substantialirregularity and it is liable to be quashed by writ of certiorari. ThePetitioner contended that if there is an additional intake to the SriLanka Law College that decision has to be taken by the 1 st RespondentCouncil and it ought to have been effected in compliance with theRules 23 (vi) of the Rules of the 1 st Respondent Council. The Petitionerfurther contended that the 7th to the 17th Respondent cannot beadmitted to the Sri Lanka Law College without admitting the Petitioner.Therefore the Petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus on the 1stRespondent and the 3rd Respondent to admit the Petitioner to the SriLanka Law College.
The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 6th Respondents filed a joint objectionsupported by the affidavit of the 3rd Respondent. The 4th Respondenthad filed a separate objection to the Petitioner's application. The 3rdRespondent’s affidavit and the 4th Respondent’s affidavit filed with thesaid objections contain similar averments. These Respondentssubmitted that the Council of Legal Education was incorporated byAct of Parliament in 1990 by the enactment of the Council of LegalEducation Ordinance No. 2 of 1990. By this Ordinance the Councilwas empowered with the concurrence of the Minister (Minister in chargeof the subject of Justice) to make by-Laws, Rules and Orders for thepurpose specified therein. Acting in terms of this provision theIncorporated Council of Legal Education promulgated Rules inter-aliaproviding for the admission of students to the Sri Lanka Law College.Under the Rules the Incorporated Council of Legal Education isempowered to decide on the number of vacancies for the admission tothe Sri Lanka Law College. Following the conduct of the EntranceExamination, on the 14th of September 2005, the Incorporated Councilof Legal Education considered the ‘frequency list of marks’ of thestudents who had presented themselves for the said examination andafter considering the available material and resources the Councildecided to draw the cut off point at 69 marks, which led to 239 studentsbeing entitled for admission to the Sri Lanka Law College. When the
CA Wannigama Vs Incorporated Council of Legal Education and others 293
(Sriskandarajah J,)
full list of candidates who are entitled for admission was produced itwas revealed that only one (1) student was being admitted to followlectures in the Tamil Medium commencing January, 2006.
The said Respondents submitted at or about the time of the releaseof the marks certain representations had been made to the Sri LankaLaw College by certain candidates who had sat the EntranceExamination in Tamil Medium, that the main question or questions (asper the affidavit of the 4th Respondent) in the Question paper hadbeen wrongly worded. The Petitioner had also brought to the notice ofthis court that several Fundamental Rights Applications were filed inthis regard and in S. C. (F. R.) No. 38/06 the Supreme Court made anOrder on 03.02.2006 (P4) to the effect; “Court requests Senior StateCounsel to ascertain from 1A respondent whether considering the natureof the complaint that has been made, the 1A respondent wouldconstitute a committee consisting of the Chief Examiner and threenominees of the Council of Legal Education for a re-scrutiny withoutreleasing the answer scripts from the custody of the 1A respondent. Ifthe 1A respondent is agreeable to such a course of action steps maybe taken accordingly." These Respondents submitted that the 1Arespondent in the above Fundamental Rights Application who is the6th Respondent in this application has not agreed for the relevantanswer scripts to be re-scrutinized by an independent committee inview of the prevailing practice of the Department of Education.
The said Respondents contended that the Incorporated Council ofLegal Education was of the view that, students who could genuinelypoint out the alleged discrepancy, should be entitled to the addition ofone mark to the number of marks already obtained. In view of thesefacts and circumstances and the need of the administration of justicein the North and Eastern Province of Sri Lanka, on the 28th of February2006, the Incorporated Council of Legal Education appointed acommittee comprising of the Honourable Attorney General (2ndRespondent), Mr. Kandiah Neelakandan, Attorney-at-Law (4thRespondent) and the Principal, Sri Lanka Law College (3rd Respondent)to interview twenty (20) candidates who had presented themselves forthe Entrance Examination for the Tamil Medium and had scored over60 marks. These Repondents further contended that the Committee is
294
Sri Lanka Law Reports
(2006) 3 Sri L R.
for the purpose of identifying students who had been prejudiced by thealleged discrepancy in the question paper and awarding themnecessary marks to offset the prejudice caused, and to select studentsto meet the object of the need of Attorneys-at-Law in the Northern andEastern Provinces.
The decision to give additional marks to students, who couldgenuinely point out the alleged discrepancy, is a subjective test-itdiffers from candidate to candidate. The lapse of time between theexamination and the interview and the possibililty of the candidatesdiscussing the question and answers after the examination and thefact that these discrepancies were identified and it was disclosed inFundamental Right applications would have had an adverse effect inthe outcome of the said subjective test. On the other hand a studentwho was not in fact prejudiced by the alleged discrepancy in thequestion paper and had answered the question correctly and had gotmarks for that question not knowing or knowing that he/she hadanswered the question correctly could have pointed out the discrepancyand would have got additional marks for the same question. This cannotbe verified by the interview committee as the answer scripts are notavailable with the interview committee. In case of a wrong question ordiscrepancy in a question the general rule that is adopted is an objectivetest and to give full marks to that question to all the candidates. In thisinstant the committee appointed by the 1 st Respondent should haveidentified the question or questions that are wrongly worded and wouldhave awarded full marks for those question to all the candidates whohad sat for that paper.
The outcome of the said interview was given in document marked3R1. The objections of the 1st to 3rd Respondents and the 4thRespondent and the affidavits of the 3rd and 4th Respondent hadcategorically stated in paragraph 14(b) and in paragraph 12(b)respectively /. e. “If it transpired that the relevant interviewee was likelyto upon enrolment as an Attorney -at – Law proceed to the Northern orEastern Province and practice the law in such area, appropriate numberof marks were awarded and thereby added to the number of marksalready obtained”. Affidavits of the said Respondents clearly indicatesthat the marks that were given to the candidates who present
CA Wannigama Vs Incorporated Council of Legal Education and others 295
(Sriskandarajah J,)
themselves for the interview was not only for the discrepancies thatwere pointed out by them but also considering the place of residenceof the candidates their future intentions in relation to the practice ofthe profession and the place of practice. I do not know how a committeecould determine the intention of a candidate, where that candidate willpractice after passing out as an Attorney – at – Law. Even if a candidategives a declaration that he/she will practice in the Northern and EasternProvinces can it be accepted to give admission to one candidate anddeny admission to another candidate. Even if one considers the placeof residence to infer this intention it is misleading because most of theTamil speaking candidates who are resident in Colombo are from theNorthern or Eastern Province. The committee after interviewingcandidates has decided to give marks on the basis —
that the interviewee had been genuinely misled in comprehendingthe relevant question and forming the correct answer ;
that it transpired that the relevant interviewee is likely to uponenrolment as an Attorney-at-Law proceed to the North or EastProvince and practice the law in such area.
It is illogical for the aforesaid reasons to give marks on the aforesaidbasis. The said committee also had not identified the relevant marksgiven to each candidate to (a) and (b) above and it has also not giventhe actual marks obtained by each of the candidates but had addedmarks to make them eligible for admission. Therefore the decision toadd marks to make certain candidates eligible for admission isunreasonable. Therefore it should not be relied upon in the admissionof students.
In Premachandra and Dodangoda vs Jayawickrema and BakeerMarker and others™ at 308 K. Palakidner P/CA with S. N. Silva J and
P. S. Gunasekera J issued a writ of certiorari to quash a decisionwhich was considered as unreasonable. The court observed that thediscretion must be exercised reasonably. A person entrusted with adiscretion must so to speak direct himself properly in law. He mustcall his own attention to the matters which he is bound to consider.The Court further observed :
2-CM 8436
296
Sri Lanka Law Reports
(2006) 3 Sri L R.
“ The standard of reasonableness is stated in the oftenquoted dictum of Lord Greene, MR in the case of AssociatedProvincial Picture Houses Ltd. Vs WednesburyCorporation.™ In later cases this dictum is commonlyreferred to as “Wednesbury’s unreasonableness" LordGreene in that case considered the validity of certainconditions imposed by a local authority for the grant of alicence for cinematograph performances on Sundays. It washeld that these conditions were imposed unreasonably. Inthe course of the judgment he dealt with the requirementthat discretion should be exercised reasonably in thefollowing way:
“It is true the discretion must be exercised reasonably.Now what does that mean? Lawyers familiar with thephraseology commonly used in relation to exercise ofstatutory discretions often use the word ‘unreasonable’ ina rather comprehensive sense. It has frequently been usedand is frequently used as a general description of the thingsthat must not be done. For instance, a person entrustedwith a discretion must so to speak, direct himself properlyin law. He must call his own attention to the matters whichhe is bound to consider. He must exclude from hisconsideration matters which are irrelevant to what he hasto consider. If he does not obey those rules, he may trulybe said, and often is said, to be acting “unreasonably".Similarly, there may be something so absurd that no sensibleperson could ever dream that it lay – within the powers ofthe authority. Warrington U. in Short vs. Poole Corporation<3>
gave the example of the red-haired teacher, dismissedbecause she had red hair. That is unreasonable in one,sense. In another sense it is taking into considerationextraneous matters. It is so unreasonable that it mightalmost be described as being done in bad faith; and, infact, all these things run into one another.”
CA Wannigama Vs Incorporated Council of Legal Education and others 297
(Sriskandarajah J.)
Dealing with the standard of reasonableness Professor H. W. R.Wade has in his book Administrative Law, 1988 (6th Edition) statedthat it is not the standard of “the man on the Clapham omnibus”. It isthe standard indicated by a true construction of the Act whichdistinguishes between what the statutory authority may or may not beauthorised to do (at p. 407). In a later section he has observed, dealingwith the several grounds of unreasonableness, that “the one principlethat unites them is that powers must be confined within the true scopeand policy of the Act.”
On the other hand the Incorporated Council of Legal Education hasno power or authority to add additional marks to a candidate by aninterview. The rules of the Incorporated Council of Legal Educationprovide that the admission to Sri Lanka Law College is based on theperformance at the entrance examination and there is no provision togrant marks in an interview. Therefore the additional marks given to acandidate to make the candidate eligible for admission is ultra viresthe powers of the Incorporated Council of Legal Education. Hence, itcannot be relied upon to grant admission to the Sri Lanka Law College.
Administrative Law by H. W. R. Wade & C. F. Forsyth Ninth Editionat 358. The authors when discussing the case of Padfield vs Ministerof Agriculture, Fisheries and Food observed :(4)
“But the distinction drawn by the House of Lordswill show how a statute which confers a variety ofdiscretionary powers may confer wider or narrowerdiscretion according to the context and the generalscheme of the Act. Translated into terms of thetraditional rule that powers must be exercisedreasonably, this means that the standard ofreasonableness varies with the situation. The pitfallswhich must always be avoided are those of literalverbal interpretation and of rigid standards.”
The importance of the House of Lords decision was underlined by LordDenning MR in Breen vs Amalgamated Engineering Union5 at 190 :
298
Sri Lanka Law Reports
(2006) 3 Sri L R.
“The discretion of a statutory body is never unfettered. It is adiscretion which is to be exercised according to law. That meansat'least this. The statutory body must be guided by relevantconsiderations and not by irrelevant. If its decision is influencedby extraneous considerations which it ought not to have takeninto account, then the decision cannot stand. No matter that thestatutory body may have acted in good faith; nevertheless thedecision will be set aside. This is established by Padfield vsMinister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (supra) which is alandmark in modern administrative law.”
The Sri Lanka Law College is the only professional training body forthe Attorneys-at-Law in the country. Therefore the Council whendetermining the number of vacancies under Rule 23 (vi) has to take into consideration the needs of the number of Attorneys-at- Law to theprofession to cater to the needs of the country and the availability ofthe resources in the Sri Lanka Law College to provide such professionaltraining. When such a number is determined in an overall basis ofvacancies i. e. the vacancies in the ‘Sinhala Medium’ and TamilMedium’ together, the Incorporated Council of Legal Education hasobserved that, since lately, students being selected for admission tothe Sri Lanka Law College whose vernacular is the Tamil languagehave been dwindling in numbers and has consequently led to the numberof students selected to follow lectures in the Tamil Medium fallingdown rapidly and coming to a near zero.
It is common ground that there are two mediums of instruction atthe Sri Lanka Law College namely : ‘Sinhala Medium’ and the ‘TamilMedium’. The Counsel for the Petitioner contended that even thoughthere are two mediums of instruction the candidates are free to sit theEntrance Examination in any language and to follow lectures in anylanguage. But it has to be observed that the Rule 23(2) E specificallyprovides in the requirements for admission to the Law College that acandidate should have credit pass in either Sinhala or Tamil Language.Therefore the students who have credit pass in relevant language areonly entitled to admission to the relevant medium when admission isconsidered for the relevant medium of instruction. It is submitted on
CA Wannigama Vs Incorporated Council of Legal Education and others 299
( Sriskandarajah J,)
behalf of the above respondents that the Incorporated Council of LegalEducation was conscious of the fact that, in the Northern and EasternProvinces of Sri Lanka, the number of Attorneys -at -Law are fastdwindling and that unless new Attorneys – at – Law engage in thepractice of law based in the said Provinces, serious and far reachingconsequences would arise to the administration of Justice in the saidProvinces. The Practice of Law in the said Provinces has to benecessarily engaged in the Tamil language in terms of the Constitution.Therefore the Incorporated Council of Legal Education had identified apressing need to ensure that, students from the Northern and EasternProvinces whose vernacular is the Tamil language are selected foradmission to the Sri Lanka Law College and the Tamil Medium ofstudy at the Sri Lanka Law College be kept open and running for thebenefit of such students. These Respondents contended that in viewof the foregoing facts and circumstances, the Incorporated Council ofLegal Education deemed it necessary and appropriate to take urgentmeasures to annually admit a reasonable number of students to theTamil Medium of Sri Lanka Law College, who are likely to proceedafter enrolment as Attorneys – at – Law of the Supreme Court to theNorthern and Eastern Provinces and engage in the practice of the lawin the said Provinces. (Vide paragraph 9 of the affidavit of the 3rdRespondent the Registrar of the Council of Legal Education and thePrincipal of Sri Lanka Law College and paragraph 6 of the affidavit ofthe 4th Respondent a member of the Council of Legal Education). Theaforesaid decision of the Incorporated Council of Legal Education toannually admit a reasonable number of students to the Tamil Mediumis in accordance with the Rules of the Incorporated Council of Legal
Education. In particular Rule 23(3) (vi) provides : “the number of
vacancies available as determined by the Council”. As the IncorporatedCouncil of Legal Education is empowered under the rules to determinethe vacancies in the Sri Lanka Law College depending on the need ofattorneys-at-Law and the resources available in Law College, theCouncil is empowered to determine the number of vacanciescumulatively in the Sinhala Medium and Tamil Medium or to determinethe number of vacancies separately in the Sinhala Medium and TamilMedium. The Council has felt the urgent need to admit annually areasonable number of students to the Tamil Medium and as the
300
Sri Lanka Law Reports
(2006) 3 Sri L R.
necessary resources are available at Sri Lanka Law College to train areasonable number of students in the Tamil Medium the Council haslegally and justifiably made the said decision to annually admit areasonable number of students to the Tamil Medium of Sri Lanka LawCollege.
In keeping with this decision the Council in the exercise of its powersdetermined to admit 11 more candidates to the Tamil Medium.
The learned Deputy Solicitor General who is appearing on behalf ofthe 1 st to 3rd and 5th and 6th Respondent contended that the admissionof the 11 additional intake to the Tamil Medium is on two differentbasis : one is on the basis that the students being selected foradmission to the Sri Lanka Law College whose vernacular is the Tamillanguage have been dwindling in number and consequently the numberof students admitted to Tamil Medium in the Sri Lanka Law college iscoming to near zero and as it is essential to have Attorneys-at-Lawwho are trained in Tamil Medium to practice in the Northern and EasternProvinces as the language of court in those areas are Tamil the Councildecided to admit 11 more candidates to the Tamil Medium. He furthercontended that in effect the Incorporated Council of Legal Educationacted with the view to realizing the object for which the said Councilhas been formulated, acted in conformity with the law and the relevantRules, and acted in the best interest of the administration of justice.
The second basis on which the Council admitted the said 11 studentswas by giving additional marks to the alleged discrepancy in the mainquestion of the Entrance Examination Question Paper (Tamil Medium)to each candidate after ascertaining whether the relevant intervieweehad been genuinely misled in comprehending the relevant questionand forming the correct answer to the relevant question. As I havealready analysed, the second basis under which the marks were addedto make the candidate eligible for admission through an interviewprocess is illogical and ultra vires and this basis cannot be reliedupon to make a valid decision to admit a candidate to Sri Lanka LawCollege.
CA Wannigama Vs Incorporated Council of Legal Education and others 301
(Sriskandarajah J,)
When a person or body makes a decision based on two independentbasis /. e. one could be severable from the other and one basis is notjustifiable and the other is justifiable the decision could stand as itwas made on a valid justifiable basis. Likewise the Incorporated Councilof Legal Education arrived at a decision to admit 11 more candidatesto the Tamil Medium relying on two independent basis. Namely: (1) toannually admit a reasonable number of students to the Tamil Mediumof Sri Lanka Law College (2) adding marks in an interview. As the 2ndbasis of adding marks at an interview is unreasonable and ultra vires itcannot be relied upon to arrive at a valid decision. But as the saiddecision to admit 11 more candidates is based on the 1st basis andthis basis is intra vires and justifiable hence the said decision to admit11 additional candidates to the Tamil Medium is validly made on thefirst basis. In other words the Incorporated Council of Legal Educationhas made the decision to admit 11 more candidates namely 7th to the17th Respondent to the Tamil Medium is to give effect to the decisionof the Incorporated Council of Legal Education to annually admit areasonable number of students to the Tamil Medium of the Sri LankaLaw College.
The Petitioner has sat the entrance Examination in the SinhalaMedium and as I have discussed above the Petitioner is not entitled toget admission in the Tamil Medium. Therefore the Petitioner cannotseek admission under the additional intake of 11 candidates to theTamil Medium of the Sri Lanka Law College. Hence, the Petitionercannot have a legitimate expectation or legal right to seek admissionto the Sri Lanka Law College on the marks obtained at the EntranceExamination held in October, 2005.
For the above reasons the Petitioner is not entitled to seek amandamus from this Court to admit her on her performance at theEntrance Examination. As this application was considered on its meritsand as the petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs prayed for inthe Petition the preliminary objections raised by the Respondents arenot considered in this judgment. This application is dismissed withoutcosts.
Application dismissed.