Shahnaz Sulaiman J:

Introduction

[1] This application for judicial review stems from the decision of the respondent in dismissing the applicant from the respondent's employment.

[2] At the outset, this judicial review application is out of time. The applicant had sought an extension of time to abridge the time lapse. The putative respondent opposed the application for extension of time.

[3] This court will first consider the application for extension of time prior to deciding on the application for leave to commence judicial review.

Extension Of Time

[4] The procedures relating to an application for judicial review is provided for in O 53 of the Rules of 2012. Pertaining to the time frame to file an application for judicial review, O 53 r 3(6) of the Rules of 2012 provides as reproduced below:

"53. 3(6) An application for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when the grounds of application first arose or when the decision is first communicated to the applicant."

[5] Order 53 r 3(6) of the Rules of 2012 states that an application for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within 3 months from the date when the grounds of application first arose or when the decision is first communicated to the applicant.

[6] Pertaining to the time in which an applicant is required to file an application, the court of Appeal in case of Menteri Besar Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur v. Seruan Gemilang Makmur Sdn Bhd; [2010] 4 MLJ 360; [2010] 5 CLJ 123 held as follows:

"The word 'and' between the word 'promptly' and the words 'in any event within 40 days' in its plain and ordinary meaning clearly is not disjunctive but conjunctive. An aggrieved person is required to act 'promptly', and in any event, not later than forty days from 'the date when the grounds for the application first arose' or 'when the decision is first communicated to the respondent'. The rule envisages an easily ascertainable date. It imposes an obligation on the decision maker to make a decision, and to then communicate the decision. This is an integral part of the decision making process. That date when ascertained, and upon expiration of the prescribed time frame, such a decision then becomes 'final' and immune to challenge. The intention of the rules clearly is that it is in the public interest that an aggrieved person's right of access to the court has to yield to the need for a swift finality of decision."

[Emphasis Added]

[7] What this entails is that the applicant is required to observe the strict time line which is provided for in O 53 of the Rules of 2012. The need for a strict and stringent adherence to the time period which has been provided in O 53 r 3(6) of the Rules of 2012 is meant to ensure the public authority has finality in their decision. It is intended to protect those entrusted with the enforcement of public duties against groundless harassment and to reduce delays in resolving applications in the interest of good administration. [See: Ahmad Jefri Mohd Jahri v. Pengarah Kebudayaan & Kesenian Johor & Ors; [2010] 3 MLJ 145; [2010] 5 CLJ 865 and Ketua Pengarah Kastam Dan Eksais v. Coach Malaysia Sdn Bhd; [2019] 2 MLJ 716; [2019] 4 CLJ 454]

[8] Nonetheless, the Rules of 2012 make provision for the court to grant an extension of time to file the judicial review application should there be a good reason for the court to do so. In this regard, reference is made to O 53 r 3(7) of the Rules of 2012 which states as reproduced below:

"53. 3(7) The court may, upon an application, extend the time specified in r 4(1) and if it considers that there is a good reason for doing so."

[9] Therefore, premised on O 53 r 3(7) of the Rules of 2012, it is incumbent on this court to determine whether there is a good reason for this court to allow the extension of time sought by the applicant.

[10] What are the facts of this application? The applicant had received the letter of termination of con