Petitioner, a Primary school teacher completed a five year period at a school classified as a difficult school and applied for and obtained a transfer to a school close to her husband’s home in February 1995. On 29.06.95 she received a letter dated 13.06.95 issued by the 2nd Respondent the Director of Education of the Puttalam Zone of the North Western Province (NWP) transferring her back to the old difficult school with immediate effect. Also no travelling expenses were to be paid. Transfers within the NWP were governed by a…
Read MoreTag: Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
GUNARATNE AND OTHERS V. CEYLON PETROLEUM CORPORATION AND OTHERS | 1996 2SLR 315
For many years before 1994 the 1st Petitioner had – as an individual – a Dealership Agreement together with the requisite authority under section 5 E of the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation Act, No. 28 of 1961 as amended (by Act No. 5 of 1963) for running a filling station for the sale, supply and distribution of petroleum. The same filling station was taken over by the petitioners in partnership on a Dealership Agreement signed by the Petitioners on 23.3.94 and by 1st Respondent on 26.10.94 and the petitioners were granted…
Read MoreDISSANAYAKE, ATTORNEY-AT-LAW ON BEHALF OF K. M. LAL v. SUJEEWA, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEETIYAGODA POLICE STATION AND OTHERS S.C. APPLICATION NO. 524/96
At the time this application was filed the victim Lai was unconscious. Subsequently he tendered an affidavit. It was alleged that close to midnight on 02. 06. 1996 when he was sleeping in his house, the 1st respondent and other police officers arrived and arrested him. He was taken to the Meetiyagoda Police station. In the early hours 03. 06. 1996 the 1st respondent assaulted him with hands and feet and a club when he lost consciousness. Later that day the police admitted the victim to Batapola hospital. As per…
Read MoreBENNETT RATHNAYAKE v. THE SRI LANKA RUPAVAHINI CORPORATION AND OTHERS | 199 2SLR 93
The petitioner produced a Sinhala telefilm entitled “Makara Vijithaya” at a cost, he said, of Rs. 2.3 million. The 1st respondent Corporation refused to telecast the petitioner’s telefilm during “prime time” for telefilms of that type, viz between 8.30 pm and 9.00 pm on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays. The telefilm was reviewed on three occasions by different boards. On each occasion the decision was adverse to the petitioner. But he was not told who the members of the board were, how they had been appointed, what procedure they would follow,…
Read MoreW. K. C. PERERA v. PROF. DAYA EDIRISINGHE AND OTHERS | 1995 1SLR 148
Under the Rules “Advanced Drawing” was not a main subject for the final examination for the Degree of Bachelor of Fine Arts. Where the Rules are clear and unambiguous it is impermissible and unnecessary to refer to the Examination Criteria in order to interpret the Rules. For a student who has selected Design, “Advanced Drawing” is a subject but not a “Main subject”. In respect of a student who selected Design the only requirement for an ordinary pass is that she should obtain an average of 40% in the examination.…
Read MoreJAYASINGHE v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND OTHERS | 1994 2SLR 74
The petitioner was a storekeeper employed by the 2nd respondent (Colombo South Co-operative Society). He was interdicted by letter without a stated reason and without pay. It was known that he was alleged to have been responsible for shortages at four places where he had worked between 16.3.94 to 16.9.77. No charge sheet was served on him for 14 years until 1.1.92. The disciplinary proceedings were concluded only in August 1994 after the court had given leave to proceed. By letter dated 2.9.94 he was informed that his services were…
Read MoreGAMINI DISSANAYAKE (PETITIONER IN SC 4/91) v. M. C. M. KALEEL AND OTHERS | 1993 2SLR 135
Eight Members of the United National Party who were also members of Parliament singly filed eight petitions bearing numbers SC 4 – 11/91 challenging their expulsion from the Party. The respective petitioners in applications No. SC 5/91 and No. SC 8/91 were Ministers of Cabinet rank in the UNP government shortly before their expulsion. The petitioner in application No. SC 9/91 and the petitioner in application No. SC 10/91 were a State Minister and Project Minister respectively in ttie UNP government shortly before their expulsion. The petitioners have filed their…
Read MoreWIJENAIKE v. AIR LANKA LIMITED AND OTHERS |1990 1SLR 293
The petitioner joined Air Lanka as a Cadet Pilot on 10.06.84. He left the country on 22.12.87 with a view to employment with Gull Air having applied on 19.12.87 (or 03 years no pay leave. Leave however was refused. On 04.02.88 the petitioner returned and on 22.02.88 applied to be rostered for duty. This was not allowed. Air Lanka by letter dated 06.05.88 informed petitioner that he had vacated post. The petitioner’s position was that he had only prospected for foreign employment and he had made a separate application for…
Read MoreSASANASIRITISSA THERO AND OTHERS v. P.A. DE SILVA, CHIEF INSPECTOR, C.I.D. AND OTHERS | 1989 2SLR 356
Fundamental Rights – Mala tide arrest and detention tor political reasons – Articles 12(1), 12(2), 13(1), 13(2) and 14(1) of the Constitution – Time-base At the Katana Mahapola celebration held at Harischandra Vidyalaya a bomb explosion took place to disrupt the procession and two hand grenades were thrown – one of which struck a student and rolled on to the ground without exploding a few yards from the Hon. Amarasiri, Minister of Trade and Hon. Wijayapala Mendis, Minister of Textile Industries (5th respondent) and the others exploded causing injuries to…
Read MoreWELIGODAPOLA v. SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WOMEN’S AFFAIRS AND TEACHING HOSPITALS AND OTHERS | 1989 2SLR 63
The law recognizes that the principles of equality does not mean that every law must have universal application’for all persons who are not, by nature, attainment or circumstances in the same position. What is required is that persons who by nature, attainment or circumstances are similar are treated alike. If there is a classification which deals alike with those who are similarly situated, someone who is different cannot be allowed to complain that he has not been treated equally; for being different, he must necessarily expect to be treated differently.…
Read More