Narkunavathy Sundareson J:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

(Enclosure 6)

Introduction

[1]On 4.12.2024, the Applicant was granted leave to file an application for judicial review against the Respondents.

[2]Enclosure 6 is the Applicant’s substantive application for the following orders –

(i)a declaration that the First Respondent’s decision dated 13.3.2024 terminating her appointment as Dean of the 2nd Respondent’s Medical Faculty (Dean) is unlawful and therefore null and void;

(ii)an order of certiorari to quash the Decision;

(iii)an order of mandamus directing the First Respondent to re-appoint the Applicant as Dean within 7 days of this Court order;

(iv)an order directing the Respondents to pay all the Applicant’s fees and allowance she would have been entitled to as Dean;

(v)an order for damages in the sum of RM250,485.00 or such amount as appropriate; and

(vi)an order for general damages to be assessed and costs.

[3]After considering the cause papers and submissions by the parties, this Court dismissed Enclosure 6. The following are the reasons for the decision.

Background facts

[4]The facts leading to the Decision and this application are largely undisputed. On 3.12.2020, the Applicant was appointed as Dean of the Medical Faculty for a period of 3 years by the former Vice Chancellor.

[5]Subsequently, the First Respondent re-appointed her as Dean for a further 3 years from 3.12.2023 to 31.12.2026 (Exhibit “AR-2” Enclosure 3) without any issue.

[6]At the First Respondent’s meeting on 12.3.2024, attended by the Acting Registrar and the Head of the Legal Unit, the Applicant was informed there were verbal complaints against her. She was not furnished with details of these complaints and no decision was taken at this meeting.

[7]On 14.3.2024, she received letter dated 13.3.2024 from the First Respondent informing her that her tenure as Dean would only continue until 18.3.2024 (Decision) (Exhibit “AR-5” Enclosure 3). Although she wrote to the First Respondent asking for reasons, he failed to respond.

[8]The Applicant challenges the Decision on the grounds that –

(i)the First Respondent violated the rules of natural justice by not affording her any reasons or an opportunity of being heard before revoking her appointment as Dean;

(ii)the Decision was unreasonable, irrational and disproportionate;

(iii)the Decision violated her legitimate expectation that with the re-appointment, she would remain the Dean for the 3 years; and

(iv)the Decision was made in bad faith.

[9]The First Respondent was appointed the 2nd Respondent’s Vice Chancellor on 6.11.2023 and therefore not privy to the Applicant’s initial appointment as Dean. He did in fact re- appoint her as Dean under section 24(4)University Malaya Constitution, Universities and University Colleges Act 1971

[10]He confirmed that there were no official complaints nor any investigation by the Integrity Unit against the Applicant. He further confirmed that the verbal complaints were not the basis of the revocation of her appointment.

[11]He admitted issuing the letter dated 13.3.2024 which he stated sets out the reasons for the revocation. The First Respondent asserted that under the UM Constitution, he had the power and discretion to revoke the Applicant’s appointment as Dean. The revocation was reasonable, correct and appropriate.

[12]He denied the Applicant’s allegations and contended that as the new Vice Chancellor of the 2nd Respondent, he had new plans and objectives for the institution’s future. He needed new individuals who were pragmatic, skilled, visionary, youthful and more competitive to achieve this new vision. He was not bound by the appointment or choice of deans by the 2nd Respondent’s previous administration.

[13]He denied the revocation was actuated by bad faith, abuse of power or personal animosity against the Applicant.

[14]The Respondents averred that the Applicant failed to utilize the inhouse mechanism provided by the Constitution to address her grievances against the Decision.

[15]In any event, the Firs