Recruitment of unemployed graduates in Hambantota challenged in SC

By S.S. Selvanayagam

The Supreme Court early this week fixed for hearing on 28 March next year the rights violation petition filed by UNP Parliamentarian Dayasiri Jayasekera challenging the recruitment of unemployed graduates as programs officers in the Hambantota district.

The Bench comprised Chief Justice Shirani A. Bandaranayake, Justices P.A. Ratnayake and Chandra Ekanayake.

Petitioner Dayasiri Jayasekera filed the petition in the rights and interest of the citizenry of the entire country, especially vast number of unemployed graduates who have no political clout to obtain a job under the impugned graduate recruitment scheme.

He cited Public Administration and Home Affairs Minister John Amaratunga, Ministry Secretary P.B. Abykon, Director General of Combined Services B.P.P.S. Abeygunaratne, Finance Ministry Secretary Dr. P.B. Jayasundera, Hambantotal Government Agent R.M.D.B. Meegasmulla and the Attorney General as Respondents.

 He alleges the Hambantota Government Agent has used an arbitrary list of unemployed graduates provided by Government Parliamentarians or a list prepared by the Government political authority, as the operation elements in the working of this recruitment, which is bad and unreasonable.

He complains that as a result, hundreds of eligible youth graduates in the country have been left out from receiving benefits of the scheme.

He states the Hambantota Government Agent has taken steps to interview and appoint a group of graduates as programs officers post/graduate trainees to the offices of District and Divisional Secretariats in the Hambantota District.

He alleges the recruitment drive has taken place with overt consent of the Minister, Ministry Secretary and Director General of Combined Services as well as the Finance Ministry Secretary.

He states the interviews took place and on the same date, letters of appointments were issued to a selected group of graduates.

He blames the Government Agent for using discretions in recruiting the graduates, and that such discretions are not supported with proper guidelines formulated by Ministry Secretary and the Director General of Combined Services to ensure fairness and impartiality and in such circumstances, the Government Agent’s discretion did not ensure that the most eligible graduates were recruited.

He stated that the behaviour of the Government Agent shows it has failed to treat the graduates alike in recruitment and have instead subjected the graduates to differentiation on political and other subjective considerations.

Thereby the impugned recruitment has failed to establish the required rational relationship between the object that was placed by the Cabinet and distinctions created among the graduates by this recruitment scheme, he arraigns.

He further states that there are more than 42,000 unemployed graduates in the country and their legitimate expectation with professional career were overlooked by the Respondents by the arbitrary recruitment drive.

Thereby the Government Agent has given preferential treatment under the impugned recruitment process for those who were selected and by doing so, the majority of unemployed graduates’ legitimate expectation to become a public servant in the country have been disregarded, he complained.