1. Case Background

Petitioner: Weerasuriya Arachchige Leela Weerasuriya
Respondents: People’s Bank and associated officials
Nature of Application: Fundamental Rights application under Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of Sri Lanka.
Case Reference: S.C. (F.R.) Application No. 419/2015

Key Allegation: The petitioner alleged that her fundamental right to equality under Article 12(1) of the Constitution was violated when the People’s Bank promoted a comparatively junior officer (12th respondent) to the post of Deputy Head of Finance instead of her.

Chronology of Events:

1. The petitioner joined the bank in 1989 and progressed to Deputy Chief Finance Officer in 2010.
2. She applied for the Deputy Head of Finance post multiple times between 2009 and 2015.
3. Despite her qualifications and experience, the petitioner’s application was consistently overlooked.
4. In October 2015, an interview was conducted for the position, and the 12th respondent was selected.

2. Key Issues

1. Fairness of the Selection Process:
   • Was the interview process conducted transparently and impartially?
   • Were criteria for evaluation disclosed and adhered to?
2. Discrimination Allegations:
   • Did the respondents exhibit bias by systematically denying the petitioner’s promotion?
   • Was preferential treatment given to the 12th respondent?
3. Merit vs. Seniority:
   • Should the petitioner’s long service and qualifications have outweighed performance-based assessments?

3. Arguments and Evidence

Petitioner’s Claims:

• She possessed superior qualifications and experience compared to the 12th respondent.
• The management delayed filling the position to enable the 12th respondent to qualify.
• The interview process lacked transparency; no marking scheme was disclosed in advance.
• Seniority and consistent performance were ignored.

Respondents’ Defense:

• The promotion decision was based on merit and performance during the interview, not seniority alone.
• The interview panel used predefined criteria, including communication skills, leadership, and business orientation.
• The 12th respondent was deemed more competent for the strategic demands of the position.
• Allegations of bias and discrimination were denied, and documentary evidence was provided to refute the petitioner’s claims.

4. Court’s Observations

1. Fairness of the Interview Process:
   • The court noted that while it is preferable to disclose evaluation criteria beforehand, the absence of such disclosure did not necessarily render the process flawed if applied equally to all candidates.
2. Merit-Based Evaluation:
   • The court emphasized the importance of merit in senior management positions. The criteria for evaluation—communication skills, leadership, and business orientation—aligned with the job’s responsibilities.
   • The petitioner’s limited experience in the Finance Department, compared to the 12th respondent’s extensive tenure, was a significant factor.
3. Allegations of Discrimination:
   • The court found no evidence to substantiate the petitioner’s claim that the process was manipulated to favor the 12th respondent.
   • Instances cited by the petitioner as “systematic deprivation” were deemed unsubstantiated, with respondents providing documented counter-evidence.
4. Legal Principles Applied:
   • Equality under Article 12(1) does not prohibit reasonable classifications based on job requirements.
   • Seniority, while relevant, may be secondary to merit and competency in promotions for strategic roles.

5. Judgment Summary

• Outcome: The court dismissed the petitioner’s application, ruling in favor of the respondents.
• Rationale: The promotion process was found to be merit-based, reasonable, and consistent with organizational needs. The 12th respondent’s selection was justified based on demonstrated competency and suitability for the role.

6. Implications

1. For the Petitioner:
   • The judgment blocks further promotional prospects within the People’s Bank.
   • Highlights the necessity for clarity in internal grievance mechanisms.
2. For Employers:
   • Reinforces the need for transparency and documentation in recruitment and promotion processes.
   • Validates merit-based promotions for senior management roles.
3. For Judicial Precedents:
   • Establishes the court’s stance on balancing seniority with merit in promotional disputes.
   • Emphasizes that allegations of discrimination must be substantiated with credible evidence.

7. Conclusion

This case underscores the challenges in balancing merit and seniority in public-sector promotions. While the petitioner’s long service and qualifications were acknowledged, the court prioritized competency and strategic suitability for key management positions. The judgment reaffirms the principle that equality under the law accommodates reasonable distinctions when justified by job-specific requirements.

Read full Judgement