A valid appointment requires a formal offer and acceptance; reliance on informal communications does not constitute a binding agreement.

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff was a civil servant working in the National Audit Department when he was seconded to the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Corporation, the 2nd Defendant. Whilst serving with the 2nd Defendant, he applied to be transferred permanently to the 2nd Defendant. Thereafter, the 2nd Defendant took steps to give effect to his application, culminating in his release from government service by the Public Service Commission.

[2] The permanent transfer to the 2nd Defendant however, did not materialize as the 2nd Defendant eventually decided against offering a permanent post to the Plaintiff. When his period of secondment ended, he returned to serve in the National Audit Department, until his compulsory retirement.

[3] He claims that since all necessary procedures and steps had been taken in respect of his permanent transfer to the 2nd Defendant, he is deemed to have been appointed from the date of release by the Public Service Commission. He now sues both the Defendants, seeking to be granted all the benefits he would have received if he had been employed as a permanent officer with the 2nd Defendant.

Salient Facts

[4] The facts, in the main, are not in dispute. The documents adduced at the trial are self-explanatory as to the factual scenario upon which the present dispute arose.

[5] In 2016, the Plaintiff was an auditor employed on Grade W44 in the National Audit Department.

[6] It is not unusual for employees of the civil service to be seconded to other organizations for a period of time as the secondment usually offers better remuneration and benefits. The procedure regulating secondment is contained in Pekeliling Perkhidmatan Bilangan 12 Tahun 2008 Dasar dan Prosedur Pelantikan Secara Peminjaman, Pertukaran Sementara dan Pertukaran Tetap.

[7] In the case of the Plaintiff, he was seconded to the service of the 2nd Defendant for a period of 2 years with effect from 2 June 2014 to 1 June 2016, on a higher grade, i.e Grade W48. Upon the expiry of his secondment period, he received an extension from 2 June 2016 to 1 June 2018 to serve in the 2nd Defendant.

[8] On 1 July 2017, he applied to be transferred as a permanent officer of the 2nd Defendant, stating that he wished to complete his service there until his compulsory retirement on 9 September 2019.

[9] In the interim, on 8 February 2018, the Plaintiff was offered a promotion post of Acting W48 in the National Audit Department. There is no bar to civil servants on secondment to be offered a promotion based on their substantive post. He was told to indicate his acceptance of the offer or otherwise by 15 February 2008.

[10] The Plaintiff claimed that it was around this time that he was informed of the 2nd Defendant's intention to offer him a permanent post of an auditor at Grade W48. In view of this representation, he formally rejected the offer by the Auditor General on 15 February 2018 as he was convinced of the certainty of the offer of a permanent post with the 2nd Defendant.

[11] On 15 February 2018, the 2nd Defendant also wrote to the Auditor General to inform of its intention to approve the Plaintiff's application to be transferred permanently to serve the 2nd Defendant, and to offer him the post of an auditor on Grade W48.

[12] The proposal of the 2nd Defendant was discussed at the Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa P