027-SLLR-SLLR-2002-V-1-NARANGODA-AND-OTHERS-v.-KODITUWAKKU-INSPECTOR-GENERAL-OF-POLICE-AN.pdf
sc
Narangoda and Others v. Kodituwakku, Inspector-General
of Police and Others
247
NARANGODA AND OTHERS
v.
KODITUWAKKU, INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE AND
OTHERS
SUPREME COURTFERNANDO, J„
GUNASEKERA, J. ANDYAPA, J.
SC APPLICATION NO. 397/2000
WITH SC NOS. 398, 400, 703 AND 704 OF 2000
15 AND 28 NOVEMBER, 2001
Fundamental Rights – Promotion of Assistant Superintendents of Police – Article12 (1) of the Constitution.
The petitioners Assistant Superintendents of Police who were unsuccessfulcandidates at the selection for appointment to the rank of Superintendentcomplained of discrimination vis-a-vis the successful candidates. They challengedthe authenticity of the interview mark sheet, the selection criteria, the procedurefollowed in verifying service records and the allocation of marks. They allegedthat they were interviewed for three or four minutes each and were askedquestions some of which were not strictly relevant to their police work.
Held:
The state produced a computer printout and not the original mark sheet,and there is considerable doubt as to whether that document correctlyrecords the marks given at the interview without subsequent adjustments.
The criteria applied did not include many important qualities needed forthe post such as leadership ability, management skills, initiative, independ-ence and the ability to resist improper influence. The allocation of marksfor "service record" was gr^'ely flawed.
The records relating to "pending disciplinary inquiries" and no pay leave,etc., had not been properly assessed notwithstanding unauthenticatedalteration in some cases which led to one candidate who was not eligiblebeing selected for promotion and others being called for interview though
248
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[2002] 1 Sri L.R.
ineligible. There was also no satisfactory explanation as to the hugediscrepancies in the allocation of marks. There were no detailed interviewschedules for the use of the members of the selection Board to enablethem to verify details in respect of each candidate in the time availablefor interview.
Except as regards about one third of the promotees in respect of whomthere was no evidence of shortcoming or manipulation of marks by theBoard, the failure to produce the original mark sheet gives rise to theinference that it would have disclosed alterations and additions indicativeof manipulation.
Per Fernando, J.
"45 officers were selected in advance for promotion, for good reasons orbad, and at the interviews the allocation of marks was manipulated to givemore for the favoured few and less for the others, without disturbing theirseniority inter se."
Per Fernando, J.
"It has been established beyond reasonable doubt that the interview andselection process was a sham – worse than any I have come across. Therehad been a grave denial of the petitioners' rights to a fair, equal and reasonableselection process."
APPLICATION for relief for infringement of fundamental rights.
Faisz Musthapha, PC with Sanjeewa Jayawardena for the petitioners in SC 397,398, 703 and 704 of 2000.
D. S. Wijesinghe, PC with J. C. Weiiamuna for the petitioners in SC 400 of 2000.
Palitha Fernando, Deputy Solicitor-General for the 1st to 12th and the 48threspondents.
Manohara de Silva for the 25th respondent.
U. Abdul Najeem for the 44th respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
sc
Narangoda and Others v. Kodituwakku, Inspector-General
of Police and Others (Fernando, J.j
249
February 11, 2002FERNANDO, J.
These five applications (SC Nos. 397, 398, 400, 703 and 704 of 2000) 1were taken up for hearing together. Counsel agreed that the decisionin SC 397/2000 would apply to the other four cases as well.
There are 17 petitioners in SC 397/2000, and 29 petitioners in theother four cases. They are Assistant Superintendents of Police(ASP's), who complain that their fundamental rights under Article 12(1) had been infringed by the failure to promote them to the rankof Superintendent. In SC 397/2000 they have named as respondents36 officers who were promoted, and all those promotions arechallenged in these five applications, except that of the 48th 10respondent. Although in their petition the petitioners challenged hisappointment, alleging that he was not eligible and had neither appliednor been interviewed, at the leave stage itself they stated that theywere not pursuing that challenge because he had been promoted inpursuance of a distinct cabinet decision of 19. 04. 2000. I expressno opinion as to whether that promotion was legal or proper in termsof the applicable scheme of promotion. The 32nd respondent (can-didate No. 55) died before leave was granted, without any attemptat substitution, and natural justice requires that his promotion remainunaffected by this order.20
The officers who were invited to apply were ASP's who had fiveyears' confirmed service as ASP's, and an "unblemished record ofservice" for five years prior to December, 1999. However, the modifiedscheme of recruitment and promotion approved by the cabinet on05. 08. 98 stipulated eight years, service. The question whether somesuccessful candidates were disqualified on this score was notpursued at the hearing, and I express no opinion on that matter.
185 ASP's were called for interview, and 179 were interviewed,on 13th, 15th, 17th and 19th March and 7th May, 2000. The Board
250
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[2002] 1 Sri L.R.
of interview (the Board) consisted of the 1st respondent (the Inspector- 30General of Police), the 4th respondent (the Secretary, Ministry ofDefence), and the 50th, 51st and 52nd respondents (senior publicofficers). Upon the Board's recommendation, communicated by the 4threspondent by his letter dated 12. 05. 2000 (not produced), the PublicService Commission (PSC) by letter dated 16. 05. 2000 grantedapproval for the promotion of 35 officers. The 5th respondent is theChairman, and the 6th, 8th, 10th and 11th respondents are themembers, of the PSC. The 1st respondent announced these promo-tions by a circular dated 18. 05. 2000; (both the 17th and the 18thwere public holidays). The 4th respondent averred in his affidavit that 4°another eight officers (not named) had not been recommended, althoughthey had scored more marks than the last of the 35 promotees,because of pending fundamental rights applications, and disciplinaryand criminal proceedings against them. The PSC when grantingapproval stated that a further communication would follow in regardto another ten officers (not named). In November and December, 2000,six others were promoted. This judgment will apply to all ASP'spromoted (or recommended for promotion) in pursuance of theaforesaid interviews.
After judgment was reserved, I called for the correspondence sobetween the 1st respondent, the 4th respondent and the PSCpertaining to the promotions, and the PSC minutes. One of thedocuments produced was the 4th respondent's letter dated 12. 05.2000 to the PSC, in which he recommended 45 officers, includingthe eight who had scored more than the last promotee. That lettermade no reference to pending inquiries; his affidavit in this Court wastherefore not truthful. By letter dated 15. 05. 2000 the PSC askedwhether there were pending inquiries, and then only was it disclosed,by letter dated 15. 05. 2000 received by the PSC on 16. 05. 2000,that there were pending inquiries against ten of the officers already 6orecommended. It appears that without any discussion at a meetingChairman and three members of the PSC approved the 35 promotionsby circulation of papers the same day.
sc
Narangoda and Others v. Kodituwakku, Inspector-General
of Police and Others (Fernando, J.)
251
The petitioners contended that the decisions of the Board and thePSC were arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and discriminatory.
The shortcomings in the interview and selection process are moreserious than those disclosed in SC Applications Nos. 272-275/2001(SCM 19. 11. 2001), which involved the promotion of Chief Inspectorsto the rank of ASP.
The petitioners challenged the authenticity of the interview mark 70sheet, the selection criteria adopted by the Board, the procedurefollowed in verifying service records, and the allocation of marks. Theyaverred that they were interviewed for three to four minutes each andasked various questions, some of which were strictly unrelated to theirpolice work.
INTERVIEW MARK SHEETS
It was submitted on behalf of the members of the Board that theydid not maintain individual mark sheets, and that they made a jointassessment of each candidate. If systematically and honestly doneafter meaningful discussion, that procedure is not objectionable. However, 80the document produced by the 4th respondent as being the interviewmark sheet is a computer printout, and not a mark sheet contempo-raneously maintained by them – although that was thedocument which this Court called for. We were told that this was notavailable. (By a strange coincidence, in SC Applications 272-275/2001,too, the original mark sheet was not available).
Only the last sheet (the eleventh) of that computer printout is signed.Though all five, members have signed, three of them have not datedit. The 1st respondent had dated his signature as "12. 05. 2000". Thedate under the 4th respondent's signature is unclear. One possible 90explanation that might have been suggested for the lack of a hand-written record is that the marks, as soon as they had been agreed,were entered directly on the computer: but the members of the Board
252
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[2002] 1 Sri L.R
made no such claim. Indeed, if that was the case, there is no reasonwhy a computer printout was not obtained on 07. 05. 2000, and signedat once; only a few candidates were interviewed on 07. 05. 2000.Besides, the computer entries include the ranking of the candidates,which would have been done only after the conclusion of all theinterviews. Here, too, the members of the Board might have claimed- but did not – that this was done automatically, and contempora-100neously, by the computer program used. If that was what happened,it would have been signed the same day.
There is another matter. Against the name of candidate No. 68(and his alone), there are three asterisks (***). There was noexplanation for this. However, above the marks allocated to him,there is an unauthenticated entry: "Killed in action. Posthumouslypromoted". The asterisks and that entry, quite obviously, were notmade at the time of interview, but later. When? is the question.
Among the documents produced after the hearing was the 1strespondent's request dated 28. 04. 2000 to the 4th respondent for noa posthumous promotion for candidate No. 68 who was killed in actionon 07. 04. 2000. The 4th respondent appears to have conveyed thatrequest to the PSC only much later. The PSC by letter dated10. 08. 2001 granted that promotion. That officer had scored enoughmarks to be ranked 27th, but his name was not among thoserecommended for promotion by the Board, or promoted by the PSCin May, 2000. I find it difficult to believe that the members of theBoard in May, 2000, anticipated the PSC's August, 2001, decision. I
I think it probable that the computer printout was not a contem-poraneous record, but one subsequently made from another 120(probably handwritten) document which has not been produced. Thereis neither a certificate nor evidence that the computer printout is acorrect copy of such original (or that the members of the Boardsatisfied themselves on that score before signing). There is consid-erable doubt as to whether that document correctly records the marksgiven at the interview without subsequent adjustments.
sc
Narangoda and Others v. Kodituwakku, Inspector-General
of Police and Others (Fernando, J.)
253
CRITERIA AND PROCEDURE
In his first affidavit dated 07. 11. 2000, the 4th respondent explainedthe criteria and procedure as follows:
The Board of interview, with the concurrence of the Public Service 130Commission, applied the following marking scheme:
The candidates' seniority and service records were verified byperusing personal files, records, reports and certificates submitted bythe relevant authorities and the candidates, in order to obtain, among noother details, the total period of service in the said rank, specialincrements (10 marks), commendations and rewards of Rs. 5,000 andabove (10 marks) and good entries (10 marks).
The Board assessed their conceptual skills, analytical skills, humanrelations skills, and communication skills by questioning candidateson real and hypothetical situations in different languages and bypaying special attention to the manner and the confidence withwhich they faced the interview and replied the numerous questionsposed to them.
Each candidate was awarded marks upon the overall agreement150of the members of the Board.
In a later affidavit dated 18. 04. 2001, tiled in SC 398/2000 the4th respondent added:
seniorityservice recordconceptual skillsanalytical skillshuman relations skillscommunication skills
30 marks30 marks10 marks10 marks10 marks10 marks
254
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[2002] 1 Sri LR.
All members of the Interview Board were furnished with personaldetails of the candidates in the form of'computer printouts, anInquiry File containing disciplinary /criminal/court action pendingagainst candidates, an assessment of the service record of eachcandidate, and personal data submitted by candidates in theprescribed form.
Several questions arise in regard to the criteria and the procedure. 160
While the criteria and the weightage given are unobjectionable, itis a serious defect that the criteria did not include many importantqualities needed for the post – such as leadership ability managementskills, initiative, independence and the ability to resist improperinfluence.
The decision of the Board to subdivide "service record" to includemarks for "rewards" and "good entries” was patently unreasonable.
The petitioners produced the Departmental Order relating to the PoliceReward Fund, which provided for the payment of rewards to officersof and below the rank of Chief Inspector. It was not disputed that170ASP's are not entitled to rewards. It was also conceded that thereis no practice of making “good entries" in respect of ASP's. That theHead of the Police Force was unaware of this, and failed to enlightenhis colleagues on the Board, raises serious doubts as to hiscompetence. Assuming, however, that all the members of the Boardmade a bona fide mistake at the outset in making that subdivision,there is no explanation for their failure to correct it when the interviewscommenced – for it would then have become apparent that markscould not be allocated under those two heads. Indeed, the computerprintouts containing the candidates’ personal details did not record 180rewards and good entries. Nevertheless, if the mark sheet is to bebelieved, the Board purported to allocate marks under those twoheads as well. That is beyond dispute, because several candidateswere given high marks (between 16 and 21, out of 30) even thoughthey had no special increments or commendations.
sc
Narangoda and Others v. Kodituwakku, Inspector-General
of Police and Others (Fernando, J.)
255
Further, since an “unblemished record of service" for five yearswas a sine qua non, the Board was obliged to make provision – bydeducting marks, or otherwise – for "blemishes". As pointed out laterin this judgment, the Board failed to do so.
I hold that the subdivision of the “service record", and the allocation 190of marks for "service record", were gravely flawed.
Turning to the procedure followed, although the 4th respondentasserted that an assessment of the service record of each candidatewas available to the Board, when this Court called for the documents,the "assessments" tendered did not include those in respect ofcandidates Nos. 1 to 36, and 137 to 185. Ten of the original 35promotees were among candidates Nos. 1 to 36. The availableassessments were a scanty recital of a few aspects of the servicedetails (which should anyway have been available in the computerprintouts referred to below), and were in no sense an evaluation of zoothe merits or the quality of service. Besides, those assessments werenot signed or authenticated in any way. I doubt their reliability. Thus,candidate No. 55 had not been recommended for promotion by histwo immediate superiors, and had pending disciplinary inquiries – factswhich his "assessment" did not disclose. Candidate No. 91 had beenon no-pay leave, but this his "assessment" did not reveal – althoughone of the matters which the 4th respondent had directed the 1strespondent to provide in advance was "periods of no-pay leave/noservice period in the present rank".
As for the computer printouts, it is doubtful whether the computer 210records were regularly and systematically maintained. Thus, in regardto “disciplinary inquiries", most records were negative, as indicatedby "N". In the case of many candidates, "N" had been altered in inkto "Y“, without any authentication. It may be that these alterationswere correct and proper, but the fact that they were made shortlyafter the printouts were obtained for the interviews proves that thecomputer records had not been properly updated. Further, in regard
256
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[2002] 1 Sri L.R.
to successful candidates Nos. 47 and 55, although the computerprintout showed "N“, there was evidence that there were pendingdisciplinary inquiries against them.220
There were inconsistencies between the “assessments" and thecomputer printouts. Thus, successful candidate No. 91 had been onno-pay leave for one year and seven months, and had that periodbeen deducted it would have been apparent that he did not have therequired minimum of five years' confirmed service as an ASP. Hadthat deduction been made, it would have been clear that he was noteligible, even to be called for the interview. The computer printoutdisclosed this period of no-pay leave; the "assessment" did not. Thepetitioners pleaded that that candidate was ineligible. In reply, the 4threspondent claimed that “this fact was not reported to the interview 230Board" – thereby confessing that the Board had failed to peruse thecomputer printouts. Furthermore, counsel for that candidate pointedout that the candidate himself had disclosed this fact in his applicationform. That confirms that even if the "personal data submitted bycandidates in the prescribed form" was available to the Board (as the4th respondent claims), that too was not checked.
I must mention that the other four members of the Board did notfile affidavits to answer or explain the allegations made by thepetitioners. In SC No. 398/2000, on 03. 11. 2000 the 1st respondent'sinstructing Attorneys informed this Court that he was undergoing 240medical treatment in India and that his affidavit would be filed on hisreturn – but that was not done. The explanation given by the 4threspondent is most unsatisfactory. It was humanly impossible, in thetime available, for the Board to have verified details from all thenumerous sources listed by the 4th respondent, namely:
personal files,
records, reports and certificates submitted by the relevantauthorities and the candidates,
personal data submitted by candidates in the prescribed forms,
sc
Narangoda and Others v. Kodituwakku, Inspector-General
of Police and Others (Fernando, J.)
257
computer printouts,2
inquiry file, and
assessments of service.
What is more, it appears that what was available was only oneset of all these documents – which five members could not havereferred at the same time.
Any meaningful interview for such a large number of candidatesshould have been preceded by the preparation of detailed interviewschedules, listing out all relevant details, for the use of every memberof the Board. That was not done.
ALLOCATION OF MARKS20
The interview mark sheet shows that the first candidate scored 78marks, and the 45th candidate (not counting candidate No. 68) scored50 marks. A large number of candidates scored 49 marks, and werenot recommended.
"SeniorityThe learned Deputy Solicitor-General submitted thatmarks for seniority were allocated at the rate of three marks for eachyear of service as ASP's. In that respect, the mark sheet revealsseveral discrepancies. Thus, candidates Nos. 12, 129, 136, and 137were allocated only 12 marks each: if so, they had only four yearsfservice, and were ineligible, and even if they had been called for 270interview by mistake, the Board should not have wasted any time inattempting to assess them.
"Service Record': Among the top 45 candidates, there were over20 candidates who had been allocated between 16 and 21 marks- although there was no evidence that they had any special incrementsor commendations. There were at least another 15 candidates, alsowithout special increments or commendations, who had been allocatedbetween four and 13 marks: the latter had an aggregate of 49 marks,
258
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[2002] 1 Sri LR.
and thus missed selection by just one mark. I find it impossible tounderstand how the Board differentiated between these two groups, 280and how the differential was so substantial. Thus, successful candidateNo. 44 (with eight years' service) got 21 marks, while unsuccessfulcandidates Nos. 1 and 3 (with over ten years' service) got only fourand seven marks, respectively. There is some doubt as to the former'seligibility as he had been on overseas leave since July, 1995, butthat apart since he was abroad for all but seven months of thefive-year period relevant to quality of service, it is surprising that heearned the highest number of marks from among all the candidatesfor "service record". Candidates Nos. 1 and 3 missed the cut-off markby three marks and one mark, respectively.290
There were others, such as candidates Nos. 7, 12 and 25, whodid have special increments or commendations, but were allocatedonly 9,10 and 12 marks, respectively. Each of them had an aggregateof 49, and missed selection by one mark.
There was no satisfactory explanation as to these huge discrep-ancies.
When interviewing 179 candidates, a few mistakes are bothunavoidable and perhaps excusable. But, here the mistakes, if indeedthey were no more than mistakes, were legion. Five members of theBoard, if they had each perused the relevant documents, could notaooall have made the identical "mistakes" which I have referred to above.
The allocation of marks for "service record" appeared to be no betterthan a "lucky dip".
“Other Skills: I have now to turn to the other four criteria (col-lectively referred to as "capacity"). The petitioners stressed the short-ness of the interviews. The 4th respondent contented himself with abare denial, saying nothing about the length of each interview or thetotal time spent. The 25th respondent stated that he had been in-terviewed for "almost 15 minutes". If each interview lasted 15 minutes,
sc
Narangoda and Others v. Kodituwakku, Inspector-General
of Police and Others (Fernando, J.)
259
the Board would have required 45 hours to interview the candidates. 310The Board does not claim to have spent so much time on theinterviews. Besides, even 15 minutes was inadequate for the Boardto have done – properly – what it clams to have done. Verifying therecords of each candidate, asking him numerous questions to judgehis skills in four different areas, and discussing and reachingagreement (for each candidate separately) as to the allocation of marksfor "service record" and four other criteria, would have required muchmore than 15 minutes.
There is another disturbing feature. By and large, the Candidateswho came among the top 45 had all been given 24 marks or more 320(out of 40) for "capacity", while the unsuccessful candidates got 15or less. Candidates who were given high marks for “service record"despite the lack of special increments and commendations invariablyreceived high marks for "capacity" as well; and those who were givenlow marks for "service record" consistently also received low marksfor "capacity". That suggests a deliberate manipulation of the markingsystem. Further, the ranking of the 45 candidates who scored thehighest marks, coincided with their seniority – that is to say, not oneof those officers scored more than any of his seniors or less thanany of his juniors. Many of the candidates were of equal seniority. 330Thus, there were about 20 officers with eight years' service, eachentitled to 24 marks for seniority. That none of these candidatesscored more than his senior or less than his junior is highly improbable. I
I have no hesitation in concluding that the allocation of marks wasworse than a "lucky dip", at which everyone has an equal chance,depending only on his luck. This, however, was a deliberate manipu-lation, and not chance. 45 officers were selected in advance forpromotion, for good reason or bad, and at the interviews the allocationof marks was manipulated to give more for the favoured few, andless for the others, without disturbing their seniority inter se. The result 340was that among the 60 most senior candidates, the 31 senior officersoverlooked scored 47, 48 or 49 marks each. The only exception wascandidate No. 22 who scored 35 marks – but that was because hewas wrongly given only 12 marks (and not 24) for seniority.
260
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[2002] 1 Sri L.R.
I must hasten to add that there is no evidence of shortcomingsor manipulation in regard to about one-third'of the promotees.
The failure to produce the original mark sheet(s) gives rise to theinference that it would have disclosed alterations and additionsindicative of manipulation.
PENDING DISCIPLINARY INQUIRIES351
The 4th respondent's position that candidates who had scoredsufficient marks to warrant promotion were not recommended forpromotion if there were pending disciplinary or legal proceedingsagainst them is contradicted by his letter dated 12. 05. 2000. Thepetitioners alleged that some officers were not only recommendedbut even promoted despite such proceedings. Among the examplescited were successful candidates Nos. 47 and 55.
A rigid rule that public officers against whom disciplinary orlegal proceedings are pending must be denied appointments andpromotions, may sometimes cause injustice – as, for instance, if360the proceedings are based on frivolous allegations. At the sametime, if an appointing authority were to make an appointment or granta promotion, despite such proceedings, a serious injustice and anomalywould result if the officer was later found guilty.
Such injustices and anomalies can be avoided in several ways.
The appointing authority may make an appointment or promotionsubject to the result of the proceedings, or may expressly reserve(if he lawfully could) the right to revoke the appointment or promotionin the event of the charges being later proved. Another reasonablealternative would be for the appointing authority to make the appoint-370ment or promotion but to make it operative only upon the favourableconclusion of such proceedings.
The practice followed by the PSC in this case of permitting officersto apply for promotions despite pending proceedings, and of withhold-
sc
Narangoda and Others v. Kodituwakku, Inspector-General
of Police and Others (Fernando, J.)
261
ing promotions until such proceedings are concluded, is reasonableand proper. However, in this case there is a further consideration,namely, that only those with an “unblemished record" were eligible.Accordingly, not only were pending proceedings of some relevance,though perhaps slight, but adverse findings in concluded proceedingscould not be ignored simply because no punishment was imposed. 380Any evaluation of the "service record" of a candidate could not haveignored such "blemishes", at least for the reason that a candidateagainst whom there was no adverse finding was entitled to somepreference as against another whose record was blemished by afinding of guilt, even though not visited with "punishment" as definedin the Establishments Code.
It is in that context that the cases of candidates Nos. 47 and 55have to be considered. It was the 4th respondent, who had no personalknowledge of the facts and circumstances, who ventured explanations.
In regard to candidate No. 47 the petitioners' allegation was that he 390had been severely warned by the previous IGP on 03. 07. 98, andthat an inquiry was pending in respect of the misuse of an officialvehicle. The 4th respondent said that a report had been submittedto the 1st respondent, who "having carefully considered all availablematerial has decided not to initiate any further action". He did notsay when that decision had been taken – before the recommendation,before the promotion, or after the promotion. In regard to candidateNo. 55, the 4th respondent stated that on 30. 03. 2000 the 1strespondent had communicated a disciplinary order, a "warning",which, he said, was not a "punishment" under the Establishments400Code. The report, the disciplinary order, and other relevant documentswere not produced. The 1st respondent who would have had personalknowledge of the circumstances did not try to explain.
The 12th respondent, the Secretary to the PSC, tendered anaffidavit pleading unawareness of the petitioners' allegations, andthat presumably extended to the PSC as well.
262
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[2002] 1 Sri L.R.
I hold that in this respect too the Board failed properly to assessthe "service record" of the candidates.
ORDER
At the conclusion of the oral argument on 28. 11. 2001, all counselmoved for two weeks' time to explore the possibility of a settlementon the basis of leaving the impugned promotions undisturbed andpromoting the petitioners. Having regard to the serious flaws in theinterview and selection process, we informed counsel that this Courtcould not approve such a settlement, and that we would reserve theright of other unsuccessful candidates thereupon to complain thatsuch settlement was in violation of their rights. Thereafter, a motionwas filed by the State Attorney on 20. 12. 2001 asking for a furthertwo weeks' time "to settle this matter in view of the change ofadministration". Finally, on 11. 01. 2002 we were informed that no420settlement had been reached.
It has been established beyond reasonable doubt that theinterview and selection process was a sham – worse than any I havecome across. There has been a grave denial of the petitioners' rightsto a fair, equal and reasonable selection process.
I hold that the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 12 (1)have been infringed by the 1st, 4th, 50th, 51st and 52nd respondents,and award each of the 48 petitioners (in this and in the four othercases) a sum of Rs. 10,000 as compensation and costs, payable onor before 30. 04. 2002. The aggregate sum of Rs. 460,000 will be «opaid as follows: Rs. 100,000 personally by the 1st and 4th respondentsin equal shares, Rs. 60,000 personally by the 50th, 51st, and 52ndrespondents in equal shares, and the remaining Rs. 300,000 by theState.
All promotions made by the PSC in pursuance of the interviewsheld in March and May, 2000, are quashed (other than the 32ndrespondent's).
sc
Narangoda and Others v. Kodituwakku, Inspector-General
of Police and Others (Fernando, J.)
263
The Public Service Commission is directed to hold, or to causeto be held, fresh interviews for promotion to the rank of Superintendentof Police for the persons who duly applied and were interviewed in 440March and May, 2000; the interview and selection process shall becompleted and promotions made on or before 31. 05. 2002. The Boardof interview will determine which candidates are eligible to be calledfor interview. The Board of Interview shall not include the 1st, 4th,50th, 51st and 52nd respondents, and the PSC will consider whetherthey should be debarred from sitting on interview panels.
The Attorney-General is directed to consider whether the conductof the 1st, 4th, 50th, 51st and 52nd respondents constitutes "corrup-tion" within the meaning of section 70 of the Bribery Act as amended,or any other offence, and if so to take appropriate consequential action; 450and to submit a report to this Court not later than 30. 04. 2002.
The Registrar is directed to return to the Attorney-General allpersonal files and records pertaining to the candidates.
GUNASEKERA, J. – I agree.
YAPA, J. – I agree.
Relief granted.