KC Vohrah J:

Brief Facts

The applicant's service as a professor in the University of Malaya (UM) came to an end when UM decided not to renew his contract of employment when it expired on 28 February 1999.

The applicant in this certiorariapplication complains that he had been dismissed from employment and had not been accorded a hearing before he was dismissed.

Alternatively, he says that UM did not give him the benefit of continued employment which was founded on the representations of UM to him, and which induced him to leave University Science Malaysia (USM) where he was a permanent staff, that the applicant would be made a permanent staff of UM although he was to be employed on a year to year basis because of administrative requirements; that he had a legitimate expectation to continue to be employed as a professor at UM until he retires and that there was also a legitimate expectation to be heard before UM made its decision not to renew his contract and these legitimate expectations had been breached.

In regard to the first complaint that he was dismissed he says that he had a constitutional right to livelihood by being a member of one of the Public Services, the Education Service, and that he was entitled to procedural fairness in that he should have been given an opportunity to be heard before he was dismissed; and if he was not a member of the Public Services, he was an employee of a public authority and was also entitled to procedural fairness before he was dismissed.

In regard to the legitimate expectation issue, he states that in 1996 he was persuaded by the Deputy Chancellor (Academic Affairs) of UM, Professor Dr. Osman Abu Bakar, during several meetings, to leave USM where he was a permanent staff to join UM as the Director of the Centre for Civilisation Dialogue as a contract professor which UM proposed to establish and it was represented to him by Professor Osman, inter alia, that his status as a contract professor was an administrative requirement and that it would be a formality before he became confirmed as a permanent member of the University's academic staff. UM in fact had renewed his contract of employment for another year and had given him staff quarters. The decision of the University, therefore, not to further renew his contract of employment was inconsistent with the representations made by Professor Osman to him; he has a legitimate expectation to continue to be employed by UM in view of the express representations made to him by Professor Osman and he had a legitimate expectation to be heard or consulted by UM before the decision not to renew his employment was made.

The Leave Application

The applicant applied ex parteto the High Court for leave to apply for an order of certiorarito quash the decision of UM not to renew his contract of employment. My learned brother, Azmel J, who heard the leave application, invited the views of UM, the respondent, and the attorney general (who was given notice under the then O. 53 r. 1(3)) on the leave application. UM, according to the written submission in the court file, objected to leave being given on the ground that there cannot be judicial review of the decision of UM not to renew the applicant's contract of employment as it was a decision made under a contract and was a purely private law matter. The view of the attorney general (also seen from the written submission) was that there is an arguable case for judicial review in that the contract may not be an exclusively private law contract but one which incorporates elements of public law and that on the basis, inter alia, of Webster v. Auckland Harbour Board[1983] 142 CR 646 it may well be arguable that the applicant had a legitimate expectation of a hearing by UM before the University decided not to renew his contract of employment.

My learned brother Azmel J granted the applicant leave to apply for an order of certiorarito remove to the High Court for the purpose of being quashed the decision of UM