HUMAN RIGHT COMMISSION OF SRI LANKA - Annual report 2020 with the application. However, the Commission noted that such a requirement is not stipulated in the provisions of the said Circular and that the particulars of the transfer in question could have been established had the petitioner’s child given the opportunity to face the admissions interview. The Commission found that the petitioner’s application had been rejected erroneously and recommended the petitioner’s child to be afforded the opportunity to face the interview by both respondent schools. The Commission recommended that if the child scores the required marks above the cut-off mark at the interview, the child should be admitted to the school of the petitioner’s choosing.  Admission to Grade 1 of a public school (Complaint No: HRC/300/19) Responding to a complaint that the petitioner’s child has been unfairly deprived of admission to a leading national school in Colombo, the Commission found a violation of Article 12(1) of the Constitution. The petitioner has submitted the application to admit her child to Grade 1 of the respondent school under the category of ‘proximity’. Subsequent to the interview, the panel of interviewers has rejected her child’s application stating that there are issues pertaining to the ownership of the house in question. The petitioner had appealed against the said decision to the Board of Appeals of the Ministry of Education. Entertaining her appeal, the Board has awarded her 70.4 marks thereby placing the child well beyond the cutoff mark of 57. Nevertheless, the respondent school has failed to include the child of the petitioner in the final admission list to Grade 1. Considering the evidence placed before it, the Commission recommended the child be admitted to the relevant grade in the said public school as there has been a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 12 (1) of the Constitution.  Enforcement of a disciplinary order (Complaint No. HRC/1859/15) The Commission found that the negligent conduct of the respondent in the discharge of their administrative and executive duties has violated the petitioner’s rights guaranteed under Article 12(1) of the Constitution. The grievance arose from a disciplinary hearing, following which a disciplinary order has been issued by the respondent against the petitioner. However, 50