Satyananda, who had dismissed Kapila with the words 'I don't need you', finally expelled him.

Professor Kapila Perera has decided to immediately step down from his position as Secretary of the Ministry of Transport, Highways, and Urban Development. A historic court ruling delivered by the Supreme Court last week against the violation of fundamental rights of a senior public administration officer who served in the same ministry has directly led to this swift resignation.

The Professor has officially informed the Ministry of Public Administration, Provincial Councils, and Local Government of his resignation, and steps have been taken to duly inform President Anura Kumara Dissanayake about this matter. Professor Perera, who is thus bidding farewell to his secretarial post in the state administration, is expected to actively rejoin his university academic service in the future. Professor Kapila Perera, who previously served for a long period as the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Moratuwa, is a prominent official who also held responsibilities as the Secretary of the Ministry of Education during the administration of former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

Although the political governance of the country is determined by the ministers and MPs appointed from time to time, the real administrative responsibility of the ministries falls on officers who have passed the public administration examination. However, the traditional political method of expelling competent officers and appointing favored individuals during government changes was also observed during the current National People's Power government. Accordingly, Dr. Sanath Nandana Kumanayake, who is not an administrative officer, was appointed to the Presidential Secretary's chair, while Mr. Prabath Malavige, who was the Managing Director of the Port, and the Director General of the Road Development Authority were also removed from their positions. In this political context, Professor Kapila Perera, who does not belong to the administrative service, was also appointed as the Ministry Secretary, and Mr. W.S. Sathyananda, a Special Grade officer of the Sri Lanka Administrative Service who served under him, also had to face the injustice of losing his position.

Mr. W.S. Sathyananda, who was subjected to this injustice, is an officer with about 30 years of long and mature experience, having joined the public administration service in 1988. He started his service as an Assistant Secretary and has served as a Divisional Secretary in areas such as Thawalama, Nagoda, Hikkaduwa, and Baddegama, as well as in positions in the Ministry of Finance and as the District Secretary of Gampaha. During the administration of former President Ranil Wickremesinghe, he held the position of Secretary to the Ministry of Urban Development and Housing, but after the change of government, he had to resign from the secretarial post and subsequently remained an officer in the reserve of the Ministry of Public Administration. Thereafter, on December 10, 2024, subject to the covering approval of the Public Service Commission, steps were taken to appoint him to the position of Additional Secretary in the Port and Shipping Division of the Ministry of Transport, Highways, Ports, and Civil Aviation.

Petitioner Mr. Sathyananda stated before the court that on December 18, 2024, he duly assumed duties in the new position, informed Ministry Secretary Professor Kapila Perera via a WhatsApp message, and requested an appointment to meet him. However, he revealed that around 12:30 PM on that day, the Ministry Secretary came to his official room and ordered him to immediately leave the office premises, stating, "Your service is not needed here." He further pointed out that due to this angry and harsh behavior, which was completely inappropriate for a high-ranking public official, forcing him not to use ministry vehicles or any other facilities, he felt severely helpless, humiliated, and suffered serious mental distress, and fearing that he would be expelled by security forces, he eventually had to go home by taxi. As his fundamental human rights were completely trampled upon by this arbitrary conduct, he filed a fundamental rights petition before the Supreme Court within a month of the incident, seeking justice.

After a lengthy hearing of this petition, the relevant judgment was pronounced by Supreme Court Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere on the 19th, with the concurrence of Justices Dr. Sobitha Rajakaruna and Janak de Silva. The judge specifically pointed out that according to Rule 107 of the Public Service Commission Rules contained in Gazette Extraordinary No. 2310/29 issued on December 14, 2022, the sole and statutory power to appoint an Additional Secretary rests only with the Public Service Commission. Furthermore, it was clearly emphasized in the judgment that according to Article 61 of those rules, any person who directly or indirectly attempts to influence or obstruct a decision of the Public Service Commission, except in the course of a lawful duty, shall be guilty of an offense, and such an offense is punishable with a fine of one hundred thousand rupees or imprisonment for 7 years, or both.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court concluded that the arbitrary interference by the Ministry Secretary in a lawful appointment made by the Public Service Commission seriously undermined the Rule of Law in the country and completely breached the trust placed by the general public in high-ranking officials. A public official is a public trustee, and it is a serious offense for a Ministry Secretary, merely because he has administrative oversight powers, to attempt to usurp the statutory powers reserved solely for the Public Service Commission. Since the respondent Secretary unlawfully violated the professional and personal dignity due to the petitioner, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that he directly violated the fundamental human right to "equal treatment before the law" guaranteed by Article 12(1) of the Constitution. At the time of this judgment, Mr. Sathyananda had retired, and as the professional dignity he lost could not be quantified in monetary terms, he did not claim any compensation, and the court also refrained from ordering compensation.