Back
2022 MarsdenLR 1088
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
PERTUBUHAN PERGERAKAN TENAGA AKADEMIK MALAYSIA (GERAK) (MALAYSIAN ACADEMIC MOVEMENT) & ORS – Appellant
Versus
MENTER.... – Respondent
[Application For Judicial Review No: WA-25-194-07/2020]
The court ruled that Section 4A of the UUCA imposes no obligation to consult for reappointments of a Vice-Chancellor, affirming the limited advisory function of the selection Committee.
Headnote:(A) Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 – Section 4A – Judicial review to quash the appointment of Vice-Chancellor – Applicants contended appointment was invalid for lack of consultation – Court held no obligation to consult for reappointment existed under Section 4A. (Paras 28-57)
Facts of the case:
The Applicants challenged the appointment of the Second Respondent as Vice-Chancellor, alleging lack of consultation with the selection Committee as required.
Findings of Court:
The Applicants lacked locus standi, and their application for judicial review was dismissed for failing to show they were adversely affected by the decision.
Issues
: The court determined the validity of the Vice-Chancellor's reappointment.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court concluded that Section 4A does not impose a duty to consult the Committee for reappointments, reinforcing the limited advisory role of the Committee.
Result:
Application dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The Applicants had filed an application for judicial review proceeding (Enclosure 6) under O 53 of the Rules of 2012 (ROC). The leave was granted by this Court on 10 August 2020.
[2] The Applicants seek the following reliefs:
2.1 that leave be granted for a declaration that the decision of the First Respondent, as communicated by way of an announcement dated 13 April 2020, that appointed the Second Respondent as the Vice-Chancellor of Universiti Malaysia Terengganu (the University) is invalid in law and/or an unreasonable exercise of power in the Wednesbury sense;
2.2 that leave be granted for a declaration that the decision of the First Respondent, as communicated by way of an announcement dated 13 April 2020, that appointed the Second Respondent as the Vice-Chancellor of the University is ultra viress 4A of the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 (UUCA);
2.3 that leave be granted for a declaration that the decision of the First Respondent, as communicated by way of an announcement dated 13 April 2020, that appointed the Second Respondent as the Vice-Chancellor of the University is procedurally improper and/or in breach of natural justice as the First Respondent failed to consult and/or adequately consult the Permanent Selection Committee for the Appointment of Public University Vice-Chancellors (the Committee) established under s 4A of the UUCA on the appointment of the Second Respondent prior to the appointment;
2.4 that leave be granted for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the First Respondent, as communicated byway of an announcement dated 13 April 2020, that appointed the Second Respondent as the Vice-Chancellor of the University;
2.5 that leave be granted for a writ of quo warranto to be issued in respect of the appointment of the Second Respondent as the Vice-Chancellor of the University;
2.6 all necessary and consequential orders or directions, as deemed fit by this Honourable Court; and
2.7 the costs of this application and all cost occasioned thereby be costs in the cause.
The Applicant's Ground For The Judicial Review
[3] The grounds upon which the said reliefs are being sought are as follows:
3.1 the First Respondent appointed the Second Respondent as the Vice-Chancellor of the University with effect from 13 April 2020;
3.2 the First Respondent failed to consult and/or adequately consult the Committee established under s 4A of the UUCA on the appointment of the Second Respondent as the Vice-Chancellor of the University prior to the appointment;
3.3 the First Respondent acted in error of law or jurisdiction or acted unreasonably in the Wednesbury sense when it appointed the Second Respondent as the Vice-Chancellor of the University in the absence of any and/or any adequate consultation with the Committee on the appointment of the Second Respondent prior to the appointment;
3.4 the First Respondent rendered a decision that was procedurally improper and/or in breach of the rules of natural justice in appointing the Second Respondent as the ViceChancellor of the University in view of the absence of any and/or adequate consultation with the Committee on the appointment prior to the appointment;
3.5 the First Respondent acted in breach of the legitimate expectation of the Committee to be consulted and/or adequately consulted prior to the appointment of the Second Respondent as the Vice-Chancellor of the University;
3.6 the First Respondent acted in bad faith and/or ulterior motive in failing to consult and/or adequately consult the Committee prior to the appointment of the Second Respondent as the Vice-Chancellor of the University;
3.7 that the First Respondent acted in error of law in failing to take into account the views and the interests of the Committee on the appointment of the Second Respondent as ViceChancellor of the University prior to the appointment; and
3.8 that the First Respondent acted in error of law or jurisdiction or acted unreasonably in the Wedn
