Leel Gunasekara was a capable public servant who earned the respect of both the people and the bureaucracy. He was also an award-winning writer. In the 1960s, he wrote three novels, the first being Petition (Pethsama), which captured the hardships of village life in the North Central Province and how ordinary people viewed public servants. In that novel, among a few poems, there is one simple but powerful line: “when we look up, we see the blue sky; when we look down, we see the earth; we live between the two, so why, God Aiyanayake, do you not see us?”

Nearly seven decades have passed, yet, for many villagers, little has changed. So, one is tempted to ask again: where did we lose our way? And this time, the trigger is not just academic debate, it is a Supreme Court (SC) judgement.

If we miss this moment, we may well lose another decade talking about the same problem. The case was filed in 2014 under Fundamental Rights (FR) applications, including by D.D. Matharaarachchi and several others representing different public services, except the Sri Lanka Administrative Service (SLAS). Recently, the SC delivered its judgement in SC FR Application Number 23/2014 (opinion by President’s Counsel and Justice Yasantha Kodagoda). In simple terms, the Court has said this: there must be a proper, transparent mechanism for the promotion and appointment of Executive officers in the public service, based on merit. This is good news for many services - the Sri Lanka Planning Service, the Accountants’ Service, and others. But, it is not exactly the kind of news that brings smiles in all corners of the SLAS Association.

A long historical journey

Now, for anyone wondering whether this is a new debate, it really is not. Sri Lanka’s public service goes back to the early 1800s, under British rule, as the Ceylon Civil Service. At that time, it was a small, elite administrative structure. In the 1960s, it was reorganised into the Ceylon Administrative Service, and later became the SLAS. Over time however, several other services were created within the wider public service framework. Still, the SLAS has often been seen or has seen itself as the top layer of the system. That idea, of course, has never been universally agreed upon by others working in the system.

Expansion, burden, and public perception

Public opinion about the public service today is not exactly generous. Criticism is often louder than appreciation. Part of this comes from the broader economic shock after April 2022, when the Central Bank Governor described Sri Lanka as a bankrupt country. Since then, the public tends to see the public service as part of the problem, fairly or unfairly. What is certain is this: Sri Lanka now has a very large public service. According to the Census and Statistics Department, there are 1,156,018 employees. Take a step back and look at the numbers. Roughly 5% of the national income goes to public sector salaries, while pensions alone eat up close to 12% of Government revenue. That means the public service is not just a governance issue, it is one of the country’s heaviest long-term financial commitments. No one really needs a lecture to understand how we reached here. Every Government, at different times, has used public sector recruitment as a convenient tool for employment creation, sometimes with planning, sometimes without it. That pattern continued until very recently.

Another issue is structural. The system has expanded horizontally rather than improved vertically. While the rest of the world talks about artificial intelligence, digital governance, and efficiency tools, we are still debating Establishments Code paragraphs like they are ancient scriptures. It is no surprise that people sometimes feel the public service is not solving problems, but producing new ones. That is where late US President Ronald Reagan’s line often gets quoted: “Government is not the solution to our problem; Government is the problem.”

Politicisation, power, and meritocracy

The SC judgement, therefore, comes at a very important moment, especially with a new political coalition in power promising reform. One of the long-standing issues is politicisation. A major shift came after 1970–1977, when authority to appoint Ministry secretaries was placed under the relevant Ministers. Since then, successive Governments have continued with variations of this system. In the 1980s, things went further in some cases, where recruitment in certain areas was influenced by political recommendations from Parliamentarians. That system has now largely disappeared. Today, at least in principle, entry is through competitive examinations. But, the debate has shifted. Now, the concern is about senior positions. Many argue that the SLAS occupies a disproportionately large share of top posts across the public service. This perception was central to the case filed in 2014. The main petitioner Matharaarachchi, belonged to the Sri Lanka Planning Service and later became a Ministry secretary. Yet, officers from other services still feel that opportunities to reach senior Executive positions are uneven.

There is also a recurring complaint that positions meant for other services are sometimes filled by members of the SLAS Association. This has become a quiet but long-running tension lasting more than five decades. To be fair, no system can function well without merit. But, meritocracy requires space. And that is exactly where the debate becomes uncomfortable. Because a true merit-based system would mean redistribution of senior opportunities across services. And that naturally creates resistance. So, there is now cautious hope the Government, may attempt some reform. But, after a year in office, there is already a sense that the machinery of bureaucracy is not easy to move. It sometimes feels like swimming against a tidal wave. SLAS officers are present across key institutions - the Presidential Secretariat, the PM’s Office, and even the Public Service Commission. In fact, the Commission itself includes many retired senior administrative officers. So, the public perception, fair or not, is the system is still heavily self-contained. And interestingly, most election manifestos prefer to stay silent on this topic. It is not exactly a vote-winner. When referring to the SC order, particularly point 64, the Court has broadly outlined what needs to be done. In simple terms, it has directed the Commission to redefine job roles based on required competencies and to establish a proper system to select the most suitable candidates for each position.

The real question however, is whether the Commission is capable of carrying out this task. It may well have the capacity, but, its recent performance does not inspire much confidence. As the saying goes, “old habits die hard.” At the very least, as Sri Lankans, one can only hope the Commission will approach this responsibility with a renewed and more positive outlook.

A moment for reform or another lost decade

This is no longer just a political discussion. It is now a judicially guided reform direction. The SC has clearly instructed to develop a transparent framework for identifying competencies and appointing officers based on merit. The circular issued on 2 April 2026 by the Public Administration Ministry, following the Attorney General’s advice, reinforces this direction, especially on acting appointments and extensions. From now on, such decisions are expected to go through the Commission, at least until a proper system is in place. In effect, this is a structural shift in how the public service is supposed to operate. But, there is a gap between judgement and implementation, there is always politics, resistance, and delay. At the moment, it is not clear whether the Cabinet of Ministers or Parliament has fully prioritised this reform.

So the question remains: what now?

Globally, there are examples worth studying. One often mentioned is Margaret Thatcher‘s what later came to be called Thatcherism, where public service efficiency was a central theme. In The Path to Power (1995), she wrote: “Civil servants owe Ministers honest, accurate advice based on fact, rather than slanted submissions based on preconceptions.” That principle still feels relevant here.

President Dissanayake now has an opportunity, if he chooses to use it. But so far, the SC judgement does not appear to have fully entered the policy conversation. A bold leader could use this moment, and the momentum of the Court decision, to push reform forward carefully, without unnecessarily destabilising the system.

As citizens, we often expect leaders to show a bit of the courage of Hemingway’s old fisherman in The Old Man and the Sea going into deep waters even when the struggle is real. But, leadership alone is not enough. Society also has a role. And so the question remains, quite simply: who will be the first to bell the cat?

The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication