News
Past pupil’s son assured Grade 1 admission when vacancy occurs
View(s):Deputy Solicitor General Sanjay Rajaratnam informed Court that first preference for admission, when a vacancy occurs in Grade 1 at Richmond College, Galle, would be granted to the student petitioner, who filed a Fundamental Rights (FR) petition in the Supreme Court for being denied admission, even though he received the required marks for selection.
Petitioner Visith Seniru Suriarachi Amarasekera (student) and Vinod Hemantha Suriararachi Amarasekera (father) cited Richmond College Galle Principal E.M.S. Ekanayake, National Schools Director Gothabaya Jayaratne, the Education Ministry Secretary, Education Minister Bandula Gunawardena and the Attorney General as respondents.
The 2nd petitioner Hemantha, in his application, said that he had submitted the relevant forms for admission of petitioner Visith, his son, to Richmond College, as the son of a past pupil of the said school, according to the stipulated rules of the school and also in accordance with the regulations of the Ministry of Education. The 2nd petitioner claims that, at the interview the 1st petitioner received 51.5% in the category of children of past pupils.
Subsequently, 2nd petitioner was informed that the 1st petitioner was not selected for admission to Grade 1 for the year 2013, but was placed 5th in the provisional list.
The 2nd petitioner said that, following an appeal, he was interviewed by a three-member panel, and was informed that, if the relevant authorities permitted more than 42 children in a class, then the 1st petitioner would be admitted to Grade 1.
Further, the 2nd petitioner claims that there were two children who were admitted with the same marks, and hence, on what grounds was he refused. He was informed that they were selected on the basis of proximity to the school. The 2nd petitioner in his submission stated that, where the selection of past pupils’children are concerned, that clause does not arise, and therefore, his FR to equality has been violated.
The DSG in response, said that this was not an issue for refusal, and that the school calculates the number of years the past pupil has been in the school. The 2nd petitioner had been in the school for only seven years while the other students’ parents had been for 10 years and more, and on this basis, the other students had been selected above the 1st petitioner.
The Bench comprising of Justices Shirani Tilakawardena, Sathiya Hettige and Priyasath Dep instructed the DSG to consider the request. DSG Rajaratnam assured that the 1st petitioner would be given first preference as and when a vacancy arises.
Attorney-at-Law Nadun Fernando appeared for the petitioners.
- Telles Anandappa
comments powered by Disqus