Senior Official Challenges Ministry Secretary in Supreme Court

 

Senior Administrative Officer W.S. Sathyananda, who was appointed as the Additional Secretary of the Ministry of Transport, Shipping, and Ports, has filed a fundamental rights petition in the Supreme Court, claiming that the Ministry Secretary is obstructing him from performing his duties. Sathyananda, a Special Grade officer of the Sri Lanka Administrative Service, submitted the petition through Attorney-at-Law Niluka Dissanayake, naming Transport Ministry Secretary Prof. Kapila Perera, State Administration Minister Dr. A.H.M.H. Abhayaratne, members of the Public Service Commission, and 15 others as respondents.

According to the petition, Sathyananda was appointed to the position by the Public Service Commission on December 14, 2024. However, when he reported for duty, the Ministry Secretary allegedly informed him that another individual was being considered for the post. The next day, when he once again reported to work, the Secretary privately told him to step down from the role. Following this incident, Sathyananda verbally notified the Secretary of his official appointment and later filed a written complaint with the Public Service Commission. He argues that, following the recent presidential election, he was transferred to the state administrative reserve, an action that he claims has violated his fundamental rights.

Through his petition, Sathyananda has urged the Supreme Court to recognize that his fundamental rights have been breached and to grant permission for his case to proceed. He has also requested the issuance of an interim order preventing any further interference in his role as Additional Secretary.

Legal experts suggest that this case could set an important legal precedent concerning high-level government appointments and institutional authority. They believe that the outcome of this case may provide clarity on the powers of the Public Service Commission in making appointments and the extent of authority that ministerial secretaries hold in administrative decisions. The case has also sparked broader discussions about political and bureaucratic influence over public service appointments, raising concerns about the impartiality and independence of state institutions.