Source: https://www.kapruka.com/Sri_Lanka/law/view_legal_document.jsp?type=text&key1=Judgements&key2=SLR&key3=SLR-1986%20Vol.1-P120&key4=Constitution%20Judgements
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:45:35+00:00

Document:
ELECTION PETITION APPEAL No. 1/85.
ELECTORAL DISTRICT No. 66 -AKMEEMANA.
DECEMBER 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 17, 18, 19 AND 20, 1985.
equality - Article 12 of the Constitution.
Galle is not the proper authority to accept the resignation.
imposed by public law attaches.
State chooses to serve notice of vacation of post the official continues in the eye of the law in employment.
the disqualification under Article 91 (1) (d) (vii) of the Constitution.
The doctrine of estoppel is not applicable against the State in its governmental, public or sovereign capacity.
A waiver must be an intentional act of surrender of rights with knowledge of what those rights are.
cannot convert nullity into validity.
possess where there has been no delegation to them of the power of appointment, transfer or dismissal.
(1) Abeywickrema v. Pathirana  1 Sri L.R.215.
(2) Ganesh Ramachandra v. G.I.P. Railway Co.2 Bomb. L.R. 740.
(3) Howard v. Pickford Tool Co.  1KB 417, 421.
(4) Vine v. National Dock Labour Board  3 All ER 939.
(5) Barbar v. Manchester Regional Hospital Board  1 All ER 322.
(6) Francis v. Municipal Council of Kuala Lumpur  3 All ER 633.
(7) Vidyodaya University v. Linus Silva  66 NLR 505.
(8) Mallock v. Abdeen Corporation  2 All ER 1278.
(9) Executive committee of U.P. state warehousing corporation v. Chandrakiran Tyagi AIR 1970 SC 1244.
(10) Gunton v. Richmond LBC  3 ALL ER 577.
(11) Decro Wall international v. Practitioners in Marketing Ltd.  2 ALL ER 216.
(12) Marshll (Thomas) Exports Ltd. t. Guinle  3 ALL ER 193.
(13) Hill v. Parsons & Co., Ltd.  3 ALL ER 1345.
(14) Roshenial t. Union of Ildia AIR 1967 SC 1889.
(15) Dinesh chandra v. state of Assam AIR 1978 SC 17.
(16) De Zoysa v. Public service commission  62 NLR 492.
(17) De Alwis v. De silva  71 NLR 108.
(18) Venkaterao v. secretary of state AIR 1937 PC 31.
(19) Rangachari v. Secrtary of state AIR 1937 PC 27.
(20) High commissioner of India v. Lall AIR 1948 PC 121.
(21) Fletchar v. Nott 60 CLR 55, 97.
(22) State of U. P. v. Babu Ram AIR 1961 SC 751.
(23) State of Mysore v. sellary AIR 1965 SC 868.
(24) Shukla v. state of Gujarat  1 SCC 419.
(25) Raj kumar v. Union of India AIR 1989 SC 180, 182.
(26) Raj Narayan v. Indira Gandhi AIR 1972 SC 1302.
(27) Union of India v. Gopal Chandra AIR 1978 SC 694.
(28) A. G. v. A. D. Silva (1953) 54 NLR 529 (P. C. )  AC 461.
(29) Fernando v. Samaraweera (1951) 52 NLR 278, 285.
(30) Rhyl Urban District council v. Rhyl Amusements Ltd.  TLR 465.
(31) Barnard v. National dock Labour Board  1 ALL ER 1113.
(32) Mayes v. Mayes  2 ALL ER 397, 402.
(33) Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign commission  1 ALL ER 208.
(34) S.E. Asia Fire Bricks v. Non-Metallic Union  2 ALL ER 689.
(35) Harford v. Lynskey  1 QB 852.
(36) Royal British Bank v. Turguand (1856) 6 E & E 327.
(38) Houghton & co. v. Northard Lowe and Wills Ltd.  1 KB 246.
(39) Kreditbank Cassel v. Schenkens Ltd.  1 KB 826.
(40) British thomson Houston Co., Ltd. v. federated European Bank Ltd.  2 KB 176.
(41) Mahony v. East Holyford Mining Co.  LR. M. 869.
(42) Re county Life Assurance Co. Ltd.  5 Ch. App. 288.
(43) Freeman and Lockyer v. Bucdhurst park properties (Mangal) Ltd.  1 ALL ER 630.
(44) Western Fish Products Ltd. v. penwith D. C. (1978) 77 LOR 185, 200-203.
(45) R. v. Home secretary ex p. Choudhary  1 WLR 1177.
(46) R. v. Home secretary ex p. Ram  3 WLR 89.
(47) Robertson v. Minister of pensions  1 KB 227.
(48) Falmouth Boat Construction Co. v. Howell  1 KB 16.
(49) Satish chandra Anand v. Union of india AIR 1953 SC 250.
(50) Purshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 36.
(51) Shyam Lal v. state of U. P. AIR 1954 S. C. 369.
APPEAL from the judgment of the Election judge.
K. N. Choksy, P. C. with Neville de jacolyun seneviratne, Daya pelpola, D. H. M. Jayamaha, Lakshman Perera and Miss I. R.
Rajepakse and Herman perera for petitioner-appellant.
M. S. Aziz, D. S. G. with Tony Fernando, S. C. as amicus cureae.
office of Principal (Grade III) was more than Rs. 6,720 per annum.
in fact or in law by the 1st respondent of the said public office held by him".
Article 57 (1) of the Constitution, vide P 1, P 1 A and P2.
respondent to show that the State acted on the basis that the 1st respondent had resigned from service.
a public officer from 21.04.1983.
disqualified under the provisions of Article 91."
(iii) a public officer holding any office the initial of the salary scale of which is not less than Rs. 6,720 per annum."
ceased to be a public officer with effect from 21.04.1983.
on the date of nomination and on the date of election.
Department or on payment of one month's salary in lieu thereof.
deemed to have vacated his post as from the date of such cessation (vide section 7).
prior to resignation should he afterwards succeed in obtaining employment under Government.
4:3:2 An acknowledgment to the effect that he has been informed in these terms should be obtained from him in writing.
4:5 Acceptance of resignation should be notified in writing to the officer concerned.
not be entitled to any such benefits if he is subsequently re-employed."
Department Regulations and other Regulations issued by the Government from time to time".
power to the Director, he categorically declared before us that he was not relying on any implied delegation.
officer to qualify himself for the election in question?
notice should be accepted or not, are all matters the subject of the express or implied terms of the contract ofemployment.
In the case of a government servant, in regard to the terms relevant to these issues one has to look tohisserviceRules.
authority it cannot bring about the termination of services of the resigning employee.
terms which the law implies or prior agreement of the parties may permit." - Per Jenkins, C.J., in Ganesh Ramachandrav.G.
of the Law until its acceptance by the proper authority in terms of section 4 of the Code.
unaccepted repudiation is a thing writ in water, Howard v. Pickford Tool Co. (3).
declaration will amount to an order for specific performance of personal service, which the court will not decree.
him. It is therefore, right that, with the background of this scheme, the court should declare his rights."
master and servant. Dismissal might be in breach of contract and so unlawful, but it could only sound in damages."
he would otherwise be disabled to work as a dock-worker and he continued to be an employee of the National Board.
is a nullity and that he continues to be in service.
there are no circumstances in the present case which would make or either just or proper to make such a declaration".
of an office, to attract the appropriate remedy of administrative law."
hand and, on the other hand a mere employment under a contract of service.- Wade Administrative Law-5th Ed. at page 497.
the position in Vine's case (Supra)."
only result in the order of dismissal being held to be wrongful and in consequence making the appellant liablefordamages.
to ignore it and ask for being treated as still in service."
though no remedy may lie to maintain the contract in being (see Gunton v. RichmondLBC(10),Decro-WallInternationalv.
Practitioners in Marketing Ltd. (11), Marshall (Thomas) (Exports) Ltd. v. Guinle (12) and Hill v. Parsons & Co., Ltd. (13)).
v. Richmond LBC (supra). (Shaw, L.J. dissenting on this point) "
giving it a public nature.
changed unilaterally without reference to employees. It is only the origin of the government servicewhichiscontractual.
Once appointed, the public officer acquires a status thereafter his relations are governed by statusandnotbycontract.
and a large mass of other rules and circulars.
whose powers and duties are exclusively determined by law and not by agreement between the parties concerned.
and not to that of status"- Salmond Jurisprudence (12th Ed.) pp. 240 - 241.
Administrative Law, 5th Ed., p. 498.
powers of appointment, transfer, dismissal and disciplinary control of public officers."
Republic, other than a judicial officer but does not include certain persons specified therein.
impinging upon the overriding powers of pleasure recognisedunderArticle55(1).Mattersrelatingto"publicofficer"
Constitution as legislative, not executive or judicial in character.
so that they cannot be varied without his consent.
public officers hold office during pleasure has two important consequences.
their contract to the contrary.
employee at pleasure by any contract made with the employee.
Silva (17) which followed it in support of his contention that the Establishment Code did not have the force of law.
In De Zoysa v. Public Service Commission (supra) H.N.G. Fernando. J. relied on the Privy Council decisionofVenkataraov.
effect as a statutory provision.
Majesty's pleasure was paramount and could not legally be controlled or limited by the Rules.
other than any matters of rule. . . which are of infinite variety and can be changed from time to time "
to the exercise of powers by His Majesty.
of India v. Lall (20).
but is mandatory and necessarily qualifies the right of the Crown recognised in subsection 1".
the conditions of his tenure of office so as to prevent him from being dismissed at the will of the Crown ."
exercise of their powers under Article 55 (4). The exercise of the power is subject to the provisionsoftheConstitution.
depending on the nature of the rule whether mandatory or directory.
rules framed under Article 55(4). The Article has given a new dimension to the statutory nature of the Establishment Code.
"though the position was otherwise prior to the Constitution(Venkataraov.SecretaryofState(supra),Rangachariv.
which enshrines the doctrine of pleasureor the provision of any statute"- (Shukla v. State of Gujarat (24)).
rules made under Article 55 (4) also should be held to have statutory force.
poenitentiae, but not thereafter "
"We are of the opinion that acceptance of resignation is necessary before the service of an employeecancometoanend.
must first make an offer communicating his intention to terminate and that offer must be accepted."
determined with reference to his conditions of service."
and his service/or office tenure terminated when it is accepted by the competent authority."
sufficient to sever his connection with the service.
allowed by the Governor - General to do so.
statutes the right to unilateral resignation from office is taken away in a limited category of employment.
mean that under the common law unilateral resignation was legally effective to terminate the contract ofpublicemployment.
the legislature erroneously assumed to be so."
that unilateral resignation or repudiation is sufficient to bring to an end a contract of public employment.
are sufficient to establish the fact of repudiation of the contract by the 1st respondent.
of a Maha Vidyalaya, in breach of section 1 of Chap. XXXII of the Establishment Code.
respondent. Accordingly I hold that the 1st respondent ceased to be a public officer with effect from 21.4.83. "
on him-any act of the state releasing him for his service by the election date.
absence and he should be informed accordingly at once by registered post or by personal delivery on him.
duties may be allowed or refused by that authority."
It cannot be controverted that the 1st respondent had been absent from duty without leave from 21.4.83. It was argued byMr.
that the Deputy Solicitor General disowned that construction.
continues in the eye of the law, in employment. The State, in this case has not served any vacation of post notice.
he is a public officer."
applied to the entire class of public officers.
initial of the salary scale of which is not less than Rs. 6,720 per annum vide section 70(c)(v)ofthe1972Constitution.
acceptance of 1st respondent's resignation by the Regional Director.
by whom all Grade III Principals of Government Schools are appointed, transferred and dismissed."
by the Educational Services Committee. It was the result of his own erroneous view of the legal position.
State in its governmental, public or sovereign capacity.
the particular claiment not to raise that particular defence or so conducts himself as to be estopped from raising it.
waiver whether the landlord intended to waive or not.
An Intention to waive a right or benefit to which a person is entitled never presumed.
clearly appear from his words or conduct." Per Basnayake, J. in Fernando v Samaraweera (29).
The waiver must be clearly proved.
that he knew what his rights are and that he intended to surrender them.
what his rights were and that he intended to surrender them. Wille -Principles of South African Law, 5th Ed., p. 356.
Educational Services Committee was at any material time aware of the 1st respondent's abortive resignation.
Law, 5th Ed., p. 233.
as the rights of a private person.
account be compromised, hard though the result may be" Wade-5th Ed., p. 341.
whether or not the Principal Collector has authority to enter into the sale is placed upon him.Thisundoubtedlyistrue.
the provisions of the Ordinance. Of the two evils, this would be the greater one."
of assistant teachers in contravention of the provisions of the Establishment Code."
the power" Wade at page 319.
In Barnard v. National Dock Labour Board (31) registered dock workers were suspended from their employmentafterastrike.
have made the decision itself. This case was approved by the House of Lords in the Vine's case (supra).
that the plaintiff has not been dismissed at all. The dismissal is by reason of its origin bad and inoperative".
actions in just as much a contradiction as is unfettered discretion - Wade at page 357.
has not been adopted by the Committee or Cabinet of Ministers, for it to acquire legal validity.
of the order of the Regional Director, Galle. I hold that the said order is null and void in law.
qualified on the nomination day, his election is void.
notwithstanding the fact that the disqualification could have been removed by the date of the poll.
"the same conclusion would follow if the disqualification was based on the officer or employment held by the candidate."
"Any person eligible for election as a Member of Parliament may be nominated as a candidate for election."
person disqualified from election as a Member.
necessary to decide this controversial point.

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

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.