Malik Sachinthana’s dreams of becoming a lawyer were shattered when his application to enter a university was rejected by the University Grants Commission despite obtaining a Z score well above the required minimum.
Sachinthana sat for the GCE Advanced Level Examination in August 2018 on his second attempt with the hope of entering one of the State universities that offered a law degree and thereafter pursuing a career in law. He passed with flying colours obtaining three ‘A’ passes in all subjects and securing a Z score of 2.1652. He was ranked 4th in the Hambantota District and 90th all Island in the Arts Stream. He then applied to the University Grants Commission (UGC) for placement in either the Faculty of Law, University of Colombo, University of Jaffna, or the University of Peradeniya in that order.
Although Sachinthana’s Z score was well above the minimum score required by all the universities, his application was rejected by the UGC on the basis that he had already registered for a three-year course to obtain a Higher National Diploma in Technology and Hospitality at the Advanced Technological Institute, Galle (ATI) which was an institute that came under the UGC. The UGC claimed that according to the guidelines in the UGC’s Handbook issued that year, a student registered in an institute that comes under the UGC is ineligible to apply to another university that came under the UGC, although he would have gotten a placement at the Faculty of Law, the University of Colombo based on his Z score in different circumstances.
After exhausting all administrative remedies to no avail, Sachinthana filed a Fundamental Rights application in the Supreme Court alleging that his right to equal treatment and equal protection of the law were violated by the conduct of the UGC. The matter was argued in January 2022 and decided in June 2022. The judgment was written by Thurairaja, PC, J.
Why was Sachinthana’s application rejected by the UGC?
According to the UGC, Sachinthana’s application declared that he was not a registered student in ATI, Galle which was incorrect information. Sachinthana had faced the entrance examination to be admitted as a student of ATI, Galle based on his GCE Advanced Level examination results on his first attempt, and successfully passed the entrance exam. The ATI, Galle has then registered him as a prospective student to follow the 3-year course of study in Technology and Hospitality.
After his application to be admitted to a State university upon his new results was rejected by the UGC, Sachinthana requested the ATI officials to inform the UGC that he was not a registered student of ATI. They first informed the UGC that Sachinthana was a registered student, but had not attended any lectures at his own will. However, later they clarified that Sachinthana had validly ceased his registration with ATI, Galle well prior to the last date for registration.
With the documents clarifying the misconception in hand, Sachinthana visited the UGC officers many times requesting reconsideration of his application, but he was turned down. According to the UGC officials, once a decision was taken that a student is disqualified, it could not be changed. Sachinthana managed to meet with the Chairman of the UGC with much difficulty, and he too informed him that the decision of the UGC refusing to admit him to a university is final.
Was Sachinthana a validly registered student at the ATI, Galle?
As Thurairaja, PC, J has observed in his judgment, Sachinthana was not validly registered by the ATI, Galle. A document mandatorily required for registration is the school leaving certificate which Sachinthana has not forwarded.
On top of that, Sachinthana had cancelled his purported erroneous registration within the time frame of 60 days prior to the last day of registration. Nevertheless, the ATI, Galle had included his name as a prospective student of the institute after he passed the entrance exam. His name was removed from the books and another student has been admitted in his place, but the clerical staff had made an error in not removing his name from the computer system. On this basis, the Supreme Court observed that although it may have appeared to the UGC that Sachinthana was a registered student of ATI, Galle, the registration was unsuccessful and he had not attended a single lecture there.
Were Sachinthana’s fundamental rights infringed?
Sachinthana’s main grievance was that his fundamental rights under Article 12(1) of the Constitution were infringed by the UGC.
Article 12(1) guarantees everyone’s fundamental right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law. Thurairaja, PC, J observing that Sachinthana is clearly eligible to be admitted to a university, held that the UGC has violated the said rights under Article 12(1) by acting arbitrarily in depriving him of that opportunity.
The Supreme Court directed Sachinthana to be admitted to the next available intake of the appropriate university with immediate effect. Recognizing the three years of his university education that was lost at the cost of the executive actions of the UGC, a cost of Rs.500,000/- was imposed on the UGC to be paid to Sachinthana within 6 months.
Is the right to free education a fundamental right?
As it has been noted in the Judgment, access to free education is not a constitutionally guaranteed right. However, assurance of universal and equal access to education at all levels is a directive principle recognized in the Constitution of Sri Lanka to be considered in forming state policies. The judgment notes that despite the absence of a specific provision dealing with the right to education in our Constitution, our Courts have acknowledged that right by upholding the right to equality under Article 12, and by doing so the Supreme Court has considered that the Right to Education should be accepted as a fundamental human right.
In support of the Judgment, Thurairaja, PC, J cited one of Justice Sharvananda’s dictum in yet another fundamental rights action against the UGC.
“Education is one of the most important functions of the State today. The large expenditure of money incurred by the State for education signifies its recognition of the importance of education to a democratic society…. Such an opportunity, where the State undertakes to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.”
