JUDGMENT

Dean Wayne Daly JC:

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff's claim was dismissed with no order as to cost on 22 August 2017. I shall now give my reasons for dismissing the same.

The Claim

[2] The plaintiff's claim against the defendants were as follows:

1. A declaration regarding the legal right of a person with the status of disabilities to have an access to employment;

2. A declaration that the termination of the plaintiff as a "Pegawai Pendidikan Siswazah DG41" as unconstitutional, void and invalid;

3. A declaration that the Medical Report dated 6 and 8 March 2013 which were requested by the 4th defendant was unconstitutional, void and invalid;

4. General Damages to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff;

5. Aggravated Damages to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff;

6. Exemplary Damages to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff;

7. Interest to be incurred on the damages at 8% per annum from the date of the summons until the full settlement or on a period which this Honourable Court deems fit and just;

8. Such other Order(s) or relief(s) this Court may deem fit and just; and

9. Costs of and occasion by this Writ be paid to the plaintiff.

The Trial

[3] The trial of this suit was commenced on 22 December 2016 before my predecessor. It continued before me on 2 May 2017.

[4] The plaintiff was the first witness. His other witness was his wife, Natasha bt Ashari (PW2). The defendants on the other hand had called three witnesses namely, Chin Weng Peng, the Deputy Secretary of Education Service Commission Malaysia (DW1), Jalong Wan @ Ugat Wan (DW2), the 4th (DW2) and Saufi Bin Hj Saait, the 6th defendant (DW3).

Issues To Be Tried

[5] The plaintiff had at the commencement of the trial on 22 December 2016 informed the Court that there were three issues to be tried. They were as follows:

(a) Whether the defendants had denied the plaintiff's legal right as enacted in s 29 of Act 685, Person With Disabilities Act 2008 (the Act), to have an access to employment?

(b) Whether the plaintiff has suffered tremendous harm and grievances as a result of the defendants' action?; and

(c) Whether there is an element of misconceived under the law to imply that the plaintiff was properly terminated in accordance to the previous application for the Judicial Review that the plaintiff's relationship with the defendants was purely contractual?

First Issue

[6] The first issued to be decided was whether the defendants had denied the plaintiff's legal right as enacted on s 29 of Act 685, Person With Disabilities Act 2008 (the Act), to have an access to employment?

[7] It could be gathered from the plaintiff's submission that he was seeking legal rights of access to employment pursuant to s 29 of the Act.

[8] The plaintiff also relied on several articles of the Federal Constitution and provisions of the Specific Relief Act 1950, the Persons with Disabilities Act 2008, the Public Authority Protection Act 1948 (Act 198) and a case law to support this issue.

[9] In order for the plaintiff to qualify as a "person with disabilities" within the meaning of Persons With Disabilities Act 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), he must fulfil certain criteria under the said Act.

[10] Section 2 of the said Act defines "persons with disabilities" as:

"persons with disabilities" include those who have long term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society"

[11] In addressing this issue, it was also pertinent to refer ss 21 to 25 of the Act which deal with matters relating to the registration of the person with disabilities.

"Register of Persons with Disabilities

21. (1) Every Registrar shall keep and maintain a Register of 10 Persons with Disabilities.

(2) The Minister may make regulations for the keeping and maintenance of Person with Disabilities and such regulations may include provisions to authorize the 15 Registrar or Assistance Registrar to update the Register