Source: https://www.kapruka.com/Sri_Lanka/law/view_legal_document.jsp?type=text&key1=Judgements&key2=SLR&key3=SLR-1995%20Vol.2-P324&key4=Constitution%20Judgements
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:15:23+00:00

Document:
to be given - Absence of due performance appraisal system.
1. There was no scheme of recruitment setting out criteria and guidelines for selection.
2. The criteria and basis of selection adopted by the Board of Interview were adhoc, therefore arbitrary and vague.
3. That there was inadequate weightage given to seniority.
4. That there was no mechanism to determine experience and managerial ability and no scheme for performance appraisal.
5. It was unreasonable to give too much weightage to the performance of the interview as it was subjective.
(ii) The 2nd criterion 'additional qualifications' is likewise easily ascertainable and is therefore objective.
assessed on the above basis, and is therefore objective.
was in any way capricious.
it cannot be said that the assessment under this head was in any way capricious.
for giving greater weightage for factors, relevant to merit and ability and performance.
Further the weightage given to experience indirectly recognised seniority as well.
mandatory requirement - though it is possible that industrial relations and practice may make it mandatory in the future.
render the decisions of the Interview Board Nugatory.
1. Perera v Ranatunga- 1993 1 SLR 39.
2. Abeysinghe v CECB - SC 356/93 SCM 2.5.94.
3. Hewamallikage v. People's Bank-S.C. 291/93 SCM 14.10.94.
4. Perera v Monetary Board - S.C. 246/93 SCM 1.11.94.
5. Piyasena v. People's Bank- S.C. 359/93 SC M 4.11.94.
6. Wickremasinghe v. Loku Bandara - SC 59/93 - SCM 7.10.93.
7. Ariyasinghe v State Timber Corporation - S.C. 283/93 SCM 22.9.94.
Faisz Musthapha, P.C. with Mahanama de Silva for Petitioner.
A. S. M. Perera, D. S. G., for 1-6th and 14th Respondent.
R. K. W. Goonesekera, with L. C. M. Swarnadhipathy for 7-13 Respondents.
Institution or an International Institute/Agency.
quashed and that they be awarded damages in a sum of Rs. 100,000/- each.
operation, and that what is operative at present is the Scheme of Promotion set out inPublicAdministrationCircularNo.
the candidates for Senior Management posts, having regard to the objectives of the organisation.
Interview, has filed his objections by way of an affidavit countering the several averments made by the petitioners.
that they possess abilities to motivate and manage the performance of the subordinate staff.
year's service in Grade 3), job-oriented additional qualifications (4/5 marks for a Diploma, 6 marks fortheM.Sc./M.B.A.
the 1st Petitioner has scored only 34 marks and the 2nd Petitioner, 33.
candidate, and that those who fared best and obtained the highest marks were selected for the posts of Deputy Director.
qualification with two years service in the E.D.B. as an Assistant Director and has been confirmed in the Post".
that petition of the petitioners does not disclose a violation of their fundamental rights.
the 13th Respondent, who was the external candidate, and that he was confining himself to the 7th to 12thRespondentsonly.
"Communicating Skills" and not more than 10% for "Additional Qualifications".
unreasonable, is worthy of merit.
made his own notes on his copy of the schedule during the interviews.
in possession of a Ph.D. were awarded 10 marksprovided the above qualifications were "Job - oriented"
too cannot be said to be capricious.
this head was in any way caprcious.
pointing towards capriciousness and arbitratiness, it distinctly points away from it.
render the decisions of the Board of Interview nugatory.
fatal flaw (cf. Perera v Ranatunge (1), Abeysinghe v. C.E.C.B. (2) . There are, however,exceptions(cf.Hewamallikagev.
People's Bank (3), Perera v. Monetary Board (4), and Piyasena v. People's Bank (5), but this is not one of them.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners attacked the scheme itself, as well as its implementation, on several grounds.
greater weightage for factors relevant to merit and ability, and performance. Further, the weightagegivento"experience"
discretion unreasonably or arbitrarily in this respect.
these factors clearly an untenable and unsatisfactory position.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.