The provision that restricted senior positions only to the Sri Lanka Administrative Service has been abolished.

The Supreme Court has decided to invalidate the Administrative Service Constitution that was issued, limiting 381 high-level positions in the public service, including District Secretaries and Ministry Secretaries, to be held only by officers of the Sri Lanka Administrative Service. The court issued this order, determining that the fundamental rights of other public servants have been violated through the relevant constitution issued by the Public Service Commission.

What was thus annulled was the Administrative Service Constitution published by the Public Service Commission through the Extraordinary Gazette Notification No. 1840/2 dated December 23, 2013. The court concluded that by providing opportunities only to administrative service officers when appointing to positions such as Divisional Secretaries and Director Generals, the respondent Public Service Commission had degraded other services.

This fundamental rights petition was filed by six public officials, including Mr. D. Manthriarachchi, representing the Sri Lanka Planning Service, the Education Administrative Service, and the Ayurvedic Medical Service. The Secretary to the Ministry of Public Administration and members of the Public Service Commission were named as respondents. This decision was announced by a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Yasantha Kodagoda, Dilip Nawaz, and Kumudini Wickremasinghe.

President's Counsel Manohara de Silva appeared on behalf of the petitioners, and Deputy Solicitor General Dr. Avanthi Perera appeared before the court representing the Attorney General. The Supreme Court, which invalidated the relevant Gazette notification, ordered the Public Service Commission to prepare a new set of guidelines in consultation with high-ranking government officials regarding the appointment of officers to high positions in the administrative service, and the Attorney General was entrusted with providing the necessary advice in this regard. Furthermore, the court ordered the government to pay the relevant legal costs to the petitioners.