Promotion of PSs to rank of SIs

By S.S Selvanayagam

The Supreme Court yesterday refused to entertain the motion of the IGP to vary the orders delivered in respect of the alleged anomalies in the promotion of Police Sergeant to the rank of Sub Inspectors.

Chief Justice Shirani A. Bandaranayake with the Bench comprising Justices K.Sripavan and P.A Ratnayake ruled that we are not concerned about any personality but duty bound to judicial institution.

Counsel Sanjeeva Jayawardane with Rajeev Amarisuriya who instructed by G.G Arulpragasam (323 petitioners) and Sudath Perera Associates (302 petitioners) and Asoka Nivunhilla (nine petitioners) brought to the notice of the Court that the conduct of the IGP is tantamount to contemptuous to judiciary.

Counsel Saliya Peiris appearing for 30 Woman Police Sergeant brought to the cognisance that the Attorney General should not have filed the motion of this nature.

The Supreme Court on 19 January made order to the IGP and the Public Service Commission to promote a massive total of aggrieved 664 police sergeant including 39 woman officers to the permanent rank of Sub Inspectors of Police. The Bench comprising Chief Justice Shirani A. Bandaranayake, Justices K. Sripavan and P.A Ratnayake in their order directed that it should be implemented on or before 15 February.

Supreme Court made order making the promotions should be back dated to 11 July, 2007 but there would be no payment of arrears.

In respect of application three fundamental rights applications, the Court had made the following consequential orders:

(i) that the petitioners should have obtained over and above 59 marks at the interviews held in July 2007;

(ii) (ii) that the petitioners should have fulfilled the requirements stipulated in the applicable Scheme of Recruitment and Promotions to the rank of Sub Inspectors of Police;

(iii) (ii) that the petitioners should be placed at the appropriate salary step as in the case of the 71 officers promoted by RTM 228 but they would not be entitled to any arrears of salary.

In respect of two other applications, the Court made the following consequential orders:

(i) that the petitioners should have obtained over and above 59 marks at the interview held in July 2007;

(ii) that the petitioners should have fulfilled the requirements stipulated in the applicable Scheme of Recruitment and Promotions to the rank of Sub Inspectors of Police;

(iii) that the petitioners should be placed at the appropriate salary steps as in the case of the three female officers promoted by RTM 228 but they would not be entitled to any arrears of salary. The Court also directed that the above orders should be implemented on or before 15 February. The IGP in his motion filed on 9 February stated pursuant to the above order, several Police Sergeants who had obtained marks between 47 and62 at the said interviews, but who had not sought to invoke the fundamental rights jurisdiction and those who had invoked but whose applications were dismissed, along with officers who had become eligible for promotions after 11.02.2007 had made representations to the IGP and National Police Commission.

They made representations with regard to the following matters:

(a)that officers who had scored more marks at the said interviews than some of the petitioners in the said applications would be deprived of promotion on the basis that they had not invoked the fundamental rights jurisdiction;

(b)that officers who became eligible for promotions after 11.07.2007 would be deprived of promotion as majority of vacancies in the cadre of Sub Inspector of Police would be filled as a result of promotions of the Petitioners;

(c)that the petitioners who may be junior to some of the said officers who having obtained low marks at the interviews would be placed in a supervisory capacity over the latter officers;

(d)that this would greatly prejudice these officers and result in further stagnation due to non availability of vacancies in the cadre of Sub Inspectors and create a situation where they would lack motivation to efficiently perform their duties.

Hence, the IGP moved to the Court to take cognisance and make appropriate orders.

The Petitioners cited the IGP, National Police CommissionSecretary K.C.Loganathan, Defence Secretary, Senior DIG (Administration) N.K.Illangakoon,DIG (Discipline, Conduct and Ombudsman) Upali Gunasekara, DIG (Personnel andBasic Training) Lalith A.Jayasinghe, 72 personnel who had been promoted to therank of Sub Inspectors from the rank of Police Sergeant as well as the AttorneyGeneral as Respondents.