|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Friday, 16 July 2004 |
 |
|
 |
News | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
|
by Wasantha Ramanayake The Supreme Court yesterday directed the Public Service Commission to implement a Government Policy Decision to create the post of Assistant/Deputy Director (Pirivena) attached to each Provincial Education Department to improve the Pirivena Education System. The Bench comprised Justices Dr. (Mrs.) Shirani A. Bandaranayake, Asoka de Silva and Nihal Jayasinghe. Delivering the Judgement in a Fundamental Rights Application, Justice Dr. Bandaranayake held that the non-implementation of the Cabinet Memorandum of September 3, 2001, had violated the Fundamental Rights of 14 petitioners; 11 lecturers attached to the Seethawakapura Pirivena Teacher Training Institute at Avissawella and three Pirivena Coordinators attached to provincial education departments. Justice Dr. Bandaranayake reiterated that the provisions in the Constitution provided for the Cabinet to determine matters relating to the Public servants. "Although the Cabinet memorandum of October 3, 2001, was approved by the Cabinet at a time when the 17 Amendment to the Constitution came into effect, it is to be reiterated that Article 55(4) of the Constitution provides for the Cabinet to determine all matters of Policy relating to public officers. In such circumstances, the second respondent should not have refused to implement Cabinet Memorandum in connection with the creation of the Assistant/Deputy Director (Pirivena)." Fourteen petitioners including Ven. Mawanane Sominda Thera of Pelwatta and K. P. Piyadasa of Kurunegala cited V. K. Nanayakkara Secretary to the Ministry of Human Resources and Development, T. M. M. Tennakoon, Additional Secretary to the Public Service Commission (PSC), Chairman and members of the PSC and the Attorney General as respondents. The petitioners stated that a Cabinet Memorandum was prepared based on the findings of the government appointed Committee in 1994 to recommend the changes that should be effected to the Pirivena Act and also to regulate the Pirivena Education to improve the system. They stated that the contents in the Cabinet Memorandum included the creation of posts designated eight Pirivena Assistant/Deputy Directors attached to the Provincial Departments of Education. They alleged that the respondents did not take steps to implement the Cabinet Memorandum violating their fundamental rights. Justice Dr. Bandaranayake noted that the state counsel had argued that the Cabinet decision taken on October 3, 2001 was not valid since by which date the 17th Amendment to the Constitution had been enacted; therefore, the appointments made on that date, were not valid. According to the judgment, the petitioners had contended that Cabinet Memorandum was a policy matter regarding the Pirivena education and such decisions needed to be implemented. Batty Weerakoon with Chamantha Weerakoon and Ayanthi Abeywickrame appeared for the petitioners. State Counsel Suharshi Herath appeared for the Attorney General. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
