Verified

Appeal Court quashes appointment of Deputy Tea Commissioner

The Court of Appeal has recently quashed the appointment of the Deputy Tea Commissioner of the Sri Lanka Tea Board (SLTB), on the basis that the interview panel has exercised their discretion in an arbitrary and/or irrational and/or unreasonable manner in allocating marks.

This was when the Petition filed by the SLTB Assistant Tea Commissioner B. M. K. Madushanka, challenging the appointment of the Deputy Tea Commissioner, was taken up before Justice Mayadunne Corea and Justice Mahen Gopallawa.

The SLTB, the Tea Commissioner of SLTB, the SLTB Chairman, the Director General, the Deputy Director (Research), the Director (Tea Development) and the Deputy Tea Commissioner were named as the first to seventh respondents, respectively.

The Petitioner stated that he had been appointed to the post of Assistant Tea Commissioner at the SLTB with effect from 01.03.2017. Prior

to the impugned selection process, applications had been called for the post of Deputy Tea Commissioner on 16.08.2023 and the selection interview had been conducted on 10.10.2023.

Applications had been called to fill the post of Deputy Tea Commissioner by internal promotion by an internal memorandum on 25.06.2025. Six applications had been received in response to such advertisement, and, five

applicants, including the Petitioner and the seventh respondent attended the selection interview that was held on 24.09.2025.

The Petitioner stated that at the interview, the seventh respondent

received the highest aggregate of marks (55.2 marks) and had been recommended by the interview panel for appointment to the post of Deputy Tea Commissioner. The Petitioner had received an aggregate of 55.1 marks and was placed second in the order of merit.

Farman Cassim PC, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that the interview panel has exercised their discretion in an arbitrary and/or irrational and/or unreasonable manner in allocating marks to the Petitioner.

The Court of Appeal held that the conduct of the interview panel amply demonstrates that the panel has exercised their discretion in an irrational and unreasonable manner in interpreting the approved marking scheme, making ad hoc and unpublished changes thereto and awarding marks to the Petitioner as well as to other applicants at the selection interview.

Court further held that, having satisfied the eligibility criteria to be called for the selection interview, a legitimate expectation was created in the Petitioner that he will be duly interviewed and assessed in accordance with the approved marking scheme.

Further, it was held that the shortcomings on the part of the interview panel in conducting the selection interview has not only violated the legitimate expectation of the Petitioner of being duly interviewed and assessed in accordance with the approved marking scheme, but has also undermined the legality of the appointment of the 7th Respondent based on the results thereof.

Therefore, the Court of Appeal issued a writ of Certiorari quashing the letter of appointment issued to the 7th Respondent and a writ of Certiorari quashing the Mark Sheet and/or results of the interview held on 24.09.2025 for the post of Deputy Tea Commissioner.

Further, Court directed the SLTB to conduct a fresh interview for the appointment to the post of Deputy Tea Commissioner.

Farman Cassim, PC with Vinura Kularatne and Faadhila Thassim Attorneys-at-Law instructed by Shayamali Athukorala, Attorney-at-Law appeared on behalf of the Petitioner whilst Avanti Weerakoon, State Counsel appeared on behalf of the 1st to 6th Respondents and Shane Foster, Attorney-at-Law appeared on behalf of the 7th Respondent.