Mustapha Kamil Bin Abdullah v Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif Perbadanan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal dan Pembersihan Awam (B-01(NCvC)(W)-452-08/2023)

PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN SISA PEPEJAL DAN PEMBERSIHAN AWAM ... RESPONDENTS [In the High Court of Malaya at Shah Alam Civil Suit No.: BA-22NCvC-371-09 /2020 Between Mustapha Kamil Bin Abdullah ... Plaintiff and

Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif Perbadanan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Dan Pembersihan Awam

Perbadanan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Dan Pembersihan Awam ... Defendants] CORAM: S. NANTHA BALAN, JCA HAJI AZMAN BIN ABDULLAH, JCA AHMAD KAMAL BIN MD. SHAHID, JCA JUDGMENT Introduction [1] This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned High Court Judge (HCJ) dated 22 March 2023 in dismissing the claim by Mustapha Kamil bin Abdullah (the Plaintiff) with costs of RM 2,000.00 to Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif Perbadanan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Dan Pembersihan Awam and Perbadanan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Dan Pembersihan Awam (collectively referred to as the Defendants). [2] Having heard the appeal, examined the appeal records and considered the submissions by parties, we unanimously decided to affirm the decision of the learned HCJ and therefore, dismiss the appeal, for the reasons which are set out herein. Background Facts [3] In 2016, the Plaintiff was an auditor employed at Grade W44 in the National Audit Department (NAD). He was seconded to Perbadanan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Dan Pembersihan Awam (the $ 2 ^{n d} $ Defendant) for a period of two (2) years with effect from 2 June 2014 to 1 June 2016, on a higher grade, i.e. Grade W48. Upon the expiry of his secondment period, he received an extension from 2 June 2016 to 1 June 2018 to serve in the $ 2 ^{n d} $ Defendant. [4] On 1 July 2017, he applied to be transferred as a permanent officer of the $ 2 ^{n d} $ Defendant, stating that he wished to complete his service there until his compulsory retirement on 9 September 2019. [5] In the interim, on 8 February 2018, the Plaintiff was offered a promotion post of Acting W48 in the NAD. He was told to indicate his acceptance of the offer or otherwise by 15 February 2018. [6] The Plaintiff claimed that it was around this time that he was informed of the $ 2 ^{n d} $ Defendant's intention to offer him a permanent post of an auditor at Grade W48. In view of this representation, he formally rejected the offer by the NAD on 15 February 2018 as he was convinced of the certainty of the offer of a permanent post at Grade W48 with the $ 2 ^{n d} $ Defendant. [7] On 15 February 2018, the $ 2^{n d} $ Defendant also wrote to the NAD to inform of its intention to approve the Plaintiff's application to be transferred permanently to serve the $ 2^{n d} $ Defendant, and to offer him the post of an auditor at Grade W48. [8] The proposal of the $ 2^{n d} $ Defendant was discussed at the Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Pelantikan Bilangan 1/2018 on 12 March 2018, chaired by the Chief Executive Officer of the $ 2^{n d} $ Defendant. In the meeting, it was basically agreed that the Plaintiff's application to be transferred permanently to serve the $ 2^{n d} $ Defendant, with Grade W48 can be approved but subject to the approval of the NAD. [9] Pursuant to this meeting, several actions had been taken by both, $ 2^{n d} $ Defendant and NAD for the permanent transfer of the Plaintiff to the $ 2^{n d} $ Defendant. [10] On 30 August 2018, the Public Services Commission (PSC), responded to NAD with its approval for the Plaintiff to be released and transferred to the $ 2^{\mathrm{nd}} $ Defendant. [11] Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs period of secondment was further extended by another six (6) months from 1 June 2018 to 1 December 2018. [12] However, in a surprising turn of events, the Plaintiff was subsequently informed by the Defendants that his transfer to the $ 2 ^{n d} $ Defendant on Grade W48 was not approved. This resulted from the discussion at the Mesyuarat Anggota Perbadanan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal dan Pembersihan Awam Bilangan 4 Tahun 2018 which was held on 31 October 2018. [13] The Plaintiff made an internal appeal against the decision of the $ 2^{\mathrm{nd}} $ Defendant but to no avail. Upon the expiry of his secondment period, he returned to his former post in the NAD. In view of his earlier rejection of Acting W48, he could only assume the post of W44. He remained in that post until his retirement on 9 September 2019. In the High Court [14] Dissatisfied, on 24 September 2020, the Plaintiff instituted an action against the Defendants claiming for; among others: a. a declaration that the acts of the Defendants in communicating with the NAD of its intention to offer a permanent W48 post to the Plaintiff, constituted a valid offer of appointment; b. a declaration that by rejecting the Acting Grade W48 post in the NAD and in obtaining the approval and release of PSC, the Plaintiff had done all that was necessary to be appointed a permanent officer on Grade W48 with the $ 2^{\mathrm{nd}} $ Defendant; c. an order that the Defendants within 14 days of the court order, take all necessary steps to appoint the Plaintiff a permanent officer on Grade W48 with effect from 1 September 2018 following the approval of PSC on 30 August 2018; and d. a declaration that the Plaintiff be paid all remuneration allowances and benefits of a Grade W48 officer with effect from 1 September 2018. [15] The Learned HCJ dismissed the Plaintiff's claim on, among others, the following grounds: There was no valid offer of permanent appointment with the 2 $ ^{nd} $ Defendant a. the Plaintiff's contention that a valid offer to appoint him had been made, is without basis and wholly misconceived because: i. The $ 2 ^{n d} $ Defendant's first communication with the NAD on the permanent appointment of the Plaintiff was vide its letter of 15 February 2018. The letter merely stated that "SW Corp berhasrat untuk menawarkan pelantikan secara tetap jawatan Juruaudit Gred W48 ... " It was far-fetched to construe the letter as stating with any certainty that the Plaintiff will be offered a permanent post. ii. It was a risk he took in not accepting the offer by the NAD the Acting W48 grade on 15 February 2018. The Plaintiff ought not to have relied on the Defendant's letter of 15 February 2018 to reject the offer of Acting W48. When the permanent post with the $ 2 ^{n d} $ Defendant did not eventually materialize, he cannot seek to claim against the $ 2^{\mathrm{n d}} $ Defendant what he had given up in his substantive service; iii. the letter dated 30 March 2018 sent by $ 2^{\mathrm{n d}} $ Defendant furnishing the requisite documents requested by the NAD for its further action was merely to comply with the request by the NAD to furnish the documents stipulated therein. iv. It is absurd to contend that these documents taken cumulatively constitute a valid offer by the $ 2^{\mathrm{nd}} $ Defendant. There are administrative procedures to be observed before an offer by the $ 2^{\mathrm{nd}} $ Defendant can be made. v. These prerequisite procedures must then culminate in a formal letter of offer by the $ 2^{n d} $ Defendant. There was none. vi. Therefore, the declarations sought in prayer (i) and (ii) of the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim are devoid of merit. The Plaintiff cannot be deemed appointed following PSC's letter of release dated 30 August 2018 a. PSC's letter merely stated that it had approved the Plaintiff's release from his current post in order that he can be transferred to a permanent post with the $ 2^{n d} $ Defendant. This letter of release is necessary to comply with the provisions of Pekeliling Perkhidmatan Bilangan 12 Tahun 2008 Dasar dan Prosedur Pelantikan Secara Peminjaman, Pertukaran Sementara dan Pertukaran Tetap. b. Part VII of the relevant circular makes provision for the permanent appointment of a serving officer on secondment to the post held by him at the agency where he is seconded. c. Paragraph 56 in particular, states that the approvals of 3 parties is necessary for the transfer, namely the officer himself, the agency where he is seconded and his substantive agency. As PSC was the relevant Appointing Authority of the Plaintiff, and the body responsible for the general administration of the Plaintiff's service, the NAD sought approval of PSC. PSC then gave its approval for the release of the Plaintiff to be appointed to the $ 2 ^{n d} $ Defendant. d. The Plaintiff is misconceived to think that by PSC's approval, all necessary procedures had been completed and that he can be deemed appointed the day following PSC's letter of 30 August 2018. e. He appears to have overlooked the NAD's letter of 17 October 2018 to the $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ Defendant to furnish the following letters:

the Plaintiff's letter of resignation to the NAD within 30 days of issuance of the $ 2 ^{n d} $ Defendant's offer letter of appointment;

the $ 2^{\mathrm{nd}} $ Defendant's letter of offer appointing the Plaintiff to a permanent post;

the consent of the Plaintiff to the $ 2^{\mathrm{nd}} $ Defendant's offer; and the terms of service of the said permanent appointment. f. These documents are not mere formalities. To appoint the Plaintiff, the $ 2^{\mathrm{nd}} $ Defendant has to first issue a formal letter of offer, to which the Plaintiff must signify his acceptance to. These are essential pre-requisites, stipulated in the flow chart under paragraph 58 of Pekeliling Perkhidmatan Bilangan 12 Tahun 2008. g. The Plaintiff is then obliged to tender his resignation to the NAD within 30 days from the date of the $ 2 ^{n d} $ Defendant's letter of offer, in the format required under the relevant service circular applicable to the Plaintiff. These documents are therefore necessary to complete the process of the Plaintiff's permanent appointment with the $ 2 ^{n d} $ Defendant. This requirement is quite clear from the NAD's letter dated 17 October 2018. h. It is undisputed that on 31 October 2018, when the Mesyuarat Anggota Perbadanan Pengurusan of the $ 2^{n d} $ Defendant was held, the Plaintiff had yet to be given an offer of permanent employment with the $ 2^{n d} $ Defendant. In fact, having deliberated on the proposal to appoint him as recommended by the Appointment Committee, the meeting decided against the recommendation. The Plaintiff was duly informed of the decision by letter dated 28 November 2018. i. Whilst the Plaintiff cannot be faulted for harbouring hopes by the preceding chain of events, until and unless a letter of offer was issued and accepted by the Plaintiff, there can be no valid appointment of the Plaintiff. The documentary evidence viewed in its entirety does not allow this court to deem the appointment to have taken effect the day following the PSC's letter of release. No order to that effect can be made. j. Consequently, the Plaintiff's relief for all remuneration, benefits and allowances with effect from 1 September 2018 cannot be allowed. Mode of commencement of proceedings a. The Plaintiff ought to have commenced his action by judicial review proceedings. b. There is sufficient public law element that arises from the Plaintiff's suit. The Plaintiff seeks reliefs against the $ 2 ^{n d} $ Defendant, which is a statutory body established under The Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Corporation Act, 2007 [Act 673]. The issues in this case concerns the Plaintiff's terms of service governed by the Pekeliling Perkhidmatan Bilangan 12 Tahun 2008. c. There were letters by three agencies involved to be construed in order to determine the import of it. d. The reliefs sought, if allowed, would have implications on his service with the government and the $ 2^{\mathrm{nd}} $ Defendant, a statutory body. [16] In the result, and premised on the above reasons, the HCJ found that the Plaintiff's case must be dismissed. The Appeal [17] Dissatisfied with the decision, the Plaintiff now appeals to the Court of Appeal. [18] The issues present before this Honourable Court, as per the Memorandum of Appeal, are as follows:

Yang Arif Hakim telah terkhilaf daripada sudut undang-undang dan/atau fakta dalam mengaplikasi undang-undang apabila menolak tuntutan Saman Civil Plaintif dengan kos sebanyak RM 2,000.00 tertakluk kepada fi alokatur.

Yang Arif Hakim telah terkhilaf daripada sudut undang-undang dan/atau fakta apabila tidak menimbang secara saksama bahawa tawaran dan kelulusan penerimaan Perayu ke jawatan Juruaudit Gred W48 di Perbadanan Responden Kedua telah absah melalui keputusan yang dicapai di dalam Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Perlantikan Bil. 1/2018 yang diputuskan pada 12/3/2018.

Yang Arif Hakim telah terkhilaf daripada sudut undang-undang dan/atau fakta apabila tidak menimbang secara saksama bahawa Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Perlantikan Bil. 1/2018 yang diputuskan pada 12/3/2018 itu adalah 'Pihak Berkuasa Melantik' sebagaimana yang ditetapkan oleh peraturan/‘Pekeliling Perkhidmatan Bilangan 12 Tahun 2008 berkenaan Dasar Dan Prosedur Pelantikan Secara Peminjaman, Pertukaran Sementara dan Pertukaran Tetap'.

Yang Arif Hakim telah terkhilaf daripada sudut undang-undang dan/atau fakta apabila tidak menimbang secara saksama bahawa Mesyuarat Anggota Perbadanan Bilangan 4 Tahun 2018 yang berlangsung pada 31 Oktober 2018 bukanlah 'Pihak Berkuasa Melantik' sebagaimana yang ditetapkan oleh peraturan/‘Pekeliling Perkhidmatan Bilangan 12 Tahun 2008 berkenaan Dasar Dan Prosedur Pelantikan Secara Peminjaman, Pertukaran Sementara dan Pertukaran Tetap'.

Yang Arif Hakim telah terkhilaf daripada sudut undang-undang dan/atau fakta apabila tidak menimbang secara saksama bahawa Mesyuarat Anggota Perbadanan Bilangan 4 Tahun 2018 yang berlangsung pada 31 Oktober 2018 sendiri yang mengakui bahawa Pihak Berkuasa Melantik adalah Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Perlantikan Bil. 1/2018 yang diputuskan pada 12/3/2018.

Yang Arif Hakim telah terkhilaf daripada sudut undang-undang dan/atau fakta apabila tidak menimbang secara saksama bahawa tidak ada bukti dikemukakan oleh Responden siapakah dan/atau lokus apa yang ada pada mereka yang menghadiri Mesyuarat Anggota Perbadanan Bilangan 4 Tahun 2018 yang berlangsung pada 31 Oktober 2018 yang membuat pusingan U terhadap keputusan yang telah dicapai oleh Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Perlantikan Bil. 1/2018 pada 12/3/2018.

Yang Arif Hakim telah terkhilaf daripada sudut undang-undang dan/atau fakta apabila tidak menimbang secara saksama bahawa tindak-tanduk Responden sendiri dalam berhubungan dengan pihak Jabatan Audit Negara yang menunjukkan bahawa keputusan meluluskan dan/atau menerima Perayu sebagai pegawai di perbadanan mereka telah dibuat dan hanya menunggu pengesahan prosedural daripada majikan asal Perayu sahaja.

Yang Arif Hakim telah terkhilaf daripada sudut undang-undang dan/atau fakta apabila tidak menimbang secara saksama apabila menyatakan bahawa kes Perayu telah berjaya disanggah walaupun dalam keadaan kegagalan Responden memanggil saksi mereka dan tidak membuat 'Submission of no case to answer'.

Yang Arif Hakim telah terkhilaf daripada sudut undang-undang dan/atau fakta apabila tidak menimbang secara saksama apabila menyatakan mode tindakan ini seharusnya difailkan melalui Semakan Kehakiman sedangkan ada fakta-fakta yang memerlukan saksi-saksi dipanggil dan disoal-balas melalui Writ Saman.

Yang Arif Hakim telah terkhilaf daripada sudut undang-undang dan/atau fakta apabila tidak menimbang secara saksama apabila menyatakan mode tindakan ini seharusnya difailkan melalui Semakan Kehakiman sedangkan tuntutan Perayu ini tidak dapat dipampaskan / amenable melalui Semakan Kehakiman semata-mata.

Yang Arif Hakim telah terkhilaf daripada sudut undang-undang dan/atau fakta apabila tidak menimbang secara saksama apabila menyatakan mode tindakan ini seharusnya difailkan melalui Semakan Kehakiman kerana ada 'sufficient public law element arises from the Plaintiff's suit' sedangkan ia tidak terhad kepada elemen undang-undang awam semata-mata.

Yang Arif Hakim telah terkhilaf daripada sudut undang-undang dan/atau fakta apabila tidak menimbang secara saksama apabila menyatakan mode tindakan ini seharusnya difailkan melalui Semakan Kehakiman sedangkan Responden sendiri tidak membantah mode pemfailan ini.

Yang Arif Hakim telah terkhilaf daripada sudut undang-undang dan/atau fakta apabila tidak menimbang secara saksama apabila menyatakan mode tindakan ini seharusnya difailkan melalui Semakan Kehakiman sedangkan Yang Arif Hakim yang mengendalikan kes ini sebelum ini tidak pernah mengarahkan sedemikian. Our Findings [19] The Plaintiff complained that the Defendants breached their promise to appoint him on a permanent post of W48. His reliance on the said promise caused him to reject the Acting W48 post offered by the NAD. [20] The Plaintiff claimed that the acts of the Defendants in communicating with the NAD of its intention to offer a permanent W48 post to the Plaintiff, constituted a valid offer of appointment. [21] The Plaintiff contended that since all necessary procedures and steps had been taken in respect of his permanent transfer to the $ 2^{n d} $ Defendant, he is deemed to have been appointed from the date of release by the PSC. [22] The Defendants on the other hand contended that the Plaintiff had misconstrued the import of the $ 2 ^{n d} $ Defendant's letter dated 15 February 2018 to the NAD. It was by no means an offer to the Plaintiff to be appointed a permanent officer on Grade W48. It was merely to inform the NAD of its intention to offer the permanent post. The Plaintiff rejected the Acting W48 post on an entirely wrong assumption on his part. [23] Having fully and carefully considered the Plaintiff's as well as the Defendant's case and issues raised in the written submissions, we are of the opinion that there is only one issue which lies at the heart of this case was there a valid offer of permanent appointment with the $ 2^{\mathrm{nd}} $ Defendant? [24] Having perused the evidence produced before us, we find that the Plaintiff's contention that a valid offer to appoint him had been made is without basis. [25] On 1 July 2017, the Plaintiff applied to be transferred on a permanent basis at the $ 2^{\mathrm{nd}} $ Defendant's office. [26] The $ 2^{nd} $ Defendant's first communication with the NAD on this matter was vide its letter of 15 February 2018 whereby the $ 2^{nd} $ Defendant informed the NAD of its intention to approve the Plaintiff's application to be transferred permanently to serve the $ 2^{nd} $ Defendant and to offer him the post of an auditor on Grade W48. [27] The Plaintiff contended that the $ 2 ^{n d} $ Defendant's letter dated 15 February 2018 is a valid letter of offer. [28] As the said letter is crucial, we have reproduced the said letter dated 15 February 2018 which reads as follows: - PERBAADAN PENGURUNAN BISA PEPEJAL DAN PEMBERSINAN AWAN (SMC) 54 Kamersartan Kasa Jadotan Gunas, Parasakae Dae Karaajan Trepadoon Digital K. Q. F. & B. Blok / Negara NMPV Kecamayang Bahan John Wimsonal 2, KMBC Cyclops Oleh Yor Goud Elsaa Tel.: 019-4272-0000 Fax: 019-4272-0000 Web: www.mempeng.jpeg Raghun Yam = Raghun Kawal = P 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Borla = 15% Retained BBB Kabar Audit Nagara Jabatan Audit Nagara No.15, Area 1-5, Perskran Pendana, Present 2 82018 PUTRAJAYA (u.p: Bohlamaha, Bohagian Pengurusan Sumber Manual) CADANGAN TAKARAN PELANTIKAN TETAP BACK JAWATAN AIRUAUDIT GRED WAS DI PERBADANAN PENGQBUSAN SIBA PELJAL DAN PEMBERSIHANAWAM [SWCORP]. Dungpan hormalinya sariya diarah mertujuk kepada jerfkara larawat di atas.

Adalah dimakukan bphena pikak SWCorp berlaharat untuk menusunkan pelanakan acara bap bagi pemudan Jurnaludit Great W40 hepedia Easqik Muebapha Kamill Bin Abdullah (No KP:000000-03-0129) yong kiri diphjapan daripada Jeketan Ayuk Nagara ke SWCorp medal 2 Jan 2014 sertingan Nntl

Virkau bagakkanapan, cedargan tersaran polriwann secara lento hI acidah tersakit harpa para pembangan dan keluaran Pitak Baruata Melanik di agaral lamen. Gekirangya pitak luan acidah agarwal pembahal kurnakafu dengan mudangan bawaran pembangan hl, nathoh pem belk untuk mengormukakan makdun belak parawakquan untuk tindelaman pitak kurnal acidah nutrya.

Perbitangan dan tukuhan pilih tann berfasan dengan performan artistik dengan penerbit. "BERKHIDMAT UNTUK NEGARA" Saya yang menunjuk perintah. [HAJFMOHAMMAD DIAH BIN HAJI WAHARI] Timbalan Ketua Pegawai Ekskutif (Pengurusan) Perbadanan Pengurusan Slam Pepejal dan Pembersihah Awam (SWCorp) s.k. : ) Kalupy Pegawal Eksekutif Perbindenan Pengurusan Sisa Pepojal dan Pemberalihan Awam (SWCorp)

Pengarah Bahagian Sumber Manusia Perbadanan Pengurusan Sisa Papajal dan Pemborsihan Awam (SWCorp) [29] Having perused the letter dated 15 February 2018, it is quite clear and we so find that it is far-fetched to construe the letter as stating with any certainty that the Plaintiff will be offered a permanent post. The said letter is not a letter of offer but merely a letter of informing the NAD of the Defendants' intention to offer the Plaintiff of permanent post. [30] This can be gleaned from the letter which merely stated that: - "CADANGAN TAWARAN PELANTIKAN TETAP BAGI JAWATAN JURUAUDIT GRED W48 DI PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN SISA PEPEJAL DAN PEMBERSIHAN AWAM (SWCORP) ...SW Corp berhasrat untuk menawarkan pelantikan secara tetap jawatan Juruaudit Gred 48 ..." [Emphasis added] [31] Therefore, it is not surprising why no offer letter was issued by the $ 2^{n d} $ Defendant to appoint the Plaintiff as a permanent officer on Grade W48. [32] This was even admitted by the Plaintiff during cross-examination when he said as follows: - DC: Okay En. Kamil, soalan seterusnya daripada saya. Setuju dengan saya sebenarnya sehingga kini En. Kamil tidak pernah menerima surat tawaran rasmi dari SWCorp untuk pengesahan perlantikan tetap sebagai Juruaudit Gred W48 di Perbadanan Defendan Kedua? PW1: Saya setuju (See: Ikatan Teras Bersama (Core Bundle) at page 82- PDF page 87) [33] We take note that whilst the Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Pelantikan Bilangan 1/2018 on 12 March 2018 which was chaired by the Chief Executive Officer of the 2 $ ^{nd} $ Defendant did approve the proposal to appoint the Plaintiff, the 2 $ ^{nd} $ Defendant had never issued any letter of offer to appoint him as a permanent officer on Grade W48. [34] We find that the proposed appointment of the Plaintiff was to be deliberated at a higher-level meeting i.e. Mesyuarat Anggota Perbadanan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal dan Pembersihan Awam Bilangan 4/2018 on 31 October 2018 which subsequently decided not to make the offer to the Plaintiff. [35] The Plaintiff relied on the letter dated 30 March 2018 which was sent by the $ 2 ^{n d} $ Defendant and furnished the requisite documents requested by the NAD for its further action. WESTERN HARBOUR TOWNSHIP, NEW YORK, NY 10022 Historic American Buildings Survey, New York City Department of Parks and Recreation Theodore H. K. R. and Black L. Dugman, New York City Department of Parks and Recreation John R. Ballard, P.O. Box 6800, Coney Island Ottawa County, Ontario Regulation Number : Regulation Number : Birth Date : Birth Date : Kabuah Audit Negara Johannes Auerbach Magazin Purpharan Pernbern, Present 2 02510 PUTRALMIA (ur.p.: Bathamah, Bathingan Pengguruan Sumber Kemuda) CADANGAN TAMARAN PELANTIKAN THTAP DAGN JANAYAN JURUJAUSET GRID NTBB DI PETRADANAN PINGOURUAN BISA PEPRIJAL. DAN PEPERIKSIAN ANBUM (BHDORP) Dengan segala bonsainya oyea diterah mempakai hipodad perlomba di alas dian susah dial pihak hurni (10)dien.ALUD17(8)011Y47/0804M2 hortorkh 10 Maret 2018.

Adalah dhakimantan, kemerah-kanan ini dhakimantan dhakimantan bambahkan berbentuk dhakimantan dhakimantan pemilikan bajaj bagi Emili Matulipha Kesul din Abdullah (No.KY: 800000.03 0129) mengatur Jawasah Oudh NHA di Pekahalaman Pengunjungan Slea Papajal Kem Pemerthan Aksara (OthCorp) untuk Untuk aknguliya:

Lampkin UJ - Danausl Porskoborn Perelkorn Tolga Lengkap CS - Goveral Portfolio Bandung No Javanese para Ultramalang

Bursal peristheca perigonial

a. I Corporation dan pembahaan pahok bum menganal pahare ini amatih dilihat dan didatat dengan menganak terima kasih. Children, teachers, nurses "WARNING: DO NOT EXPLAIN THE MESSAGE." Sixteen year government partnerships Thakshan Ketan Pegawai Elektor (Pergamenty) B.P.C. Ketan Pegawai Elektor Pertambahan Pergangan Bina Sagrejk Dm Prambahan Amen (BWOCrp) [37] Upon perusal of the letter, we found that the letter was sent to comply with the request by the NAD to furnish the documents stipulated therein. [38] In our view that it is untenable to contend that these documents taken cumulatively constitute a valid offer by the $ 2^{\mathrm{nd}} $ Defendant. The position taken by the Plaintiff ignores the fact that there are administrative procedures to be observed before an offer by the $ 2^{\mathrm{nd}} $ Defendant can be made. The Plaintiff, having been in service for a good number of years cannot be ignorant of these requirements. PSC letter of release dated 30 August 2018 [39] In the present appeal, the Plaintiff seeks declarations to the effect that a valid offer of appointment had been made by the $ 2 ^{n d} $ Defendant. In the event he succeeds in the declarations sought, the Plaintiff further seeks an order that he is deemed appointed by the $ 2 ^{n d} $ Defendant on 1 September 2018 following PSC's letter of release to the NAD on 30 August 2018. [40] We find that PSC's release letter merely stated that it had approved the Plaintiff's release from his current post in order that he can be transferred to a permanent post with the $ 2^{\mathrm{nd}} $ Defendant: to comply with the Pekeliling Perkhidmatan Bilangan 12/2008 Dasar dan Prosedur Pelantikan Secara Peminjaman, Pertukaran Sementara dan Pertukaran Tetap. [41] Part VII of the relevant circular makes provision for the permanent appointment of a serving officer on secondment to the post held by him at the agency where he is seconded. Paragraph 56 in particular, states that the approvals of three (3) parties are necessary for the transfer, namely the officer himself, the agency where he is seconded and his substantive agency. [42] In our view, it is misplaced for the Plaintiff to think that by PSC's approval, all necessary procedures had been completed and that he can be deemed appointed the day following PSC's letter of 30 August 2018. [43] Critically, the Plaintiff appears to have overlooked the NAD letter of 17 October 2018 to the $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ Defendant to furnish the following letters: -

the Plaintiff's letter of resignation to the NAD within 30 days of issuance of the $ 2 ^{n d} $ Defendant's offer letter of appointment;

the $ 2^{\mathrm{nd}} $ Defendant's letter of offer appointing the Plaintiff to permanent post;

the consent of the Plaintiff to the $ 2^{n d} $ Defendant's offer; and

the terms of service of the said permanent appointment. [44] These documents are not mere formalities. To appoint the Plaintiff, the $ 2^{\mathrm{nd}} $ Defendant has to first issue a formal letter of offer, to which the Plaintiff must signify his acceptance to. These are essential pre-requisites, stipulated in the flow chart under paragraph 58 of Pekeliling Perkhidmatan Bilangan 12 Tahun 2008. [45] The Plaintiff is then obliged to tender his resignation to the NAD within 30 days from the dated of the $ 2 ^{n d} $ Defendant's letter of offer, in the format required under the relevant service circular applicable to the Plaintiff. These documents are therefore necessary to complete the process of the Plaintiff's permanent appointment with the $ 2 ^{n d} $ Defendant. [46] To that end, we find that it is very clear that there was no offer letter issued by the Defendants. The series of correspondence between the Defendants, NAD and PSC is a mere formality that was made in accordance with the Circular. [47] We are of the view that until and unless a letter of offer was issued and accepted by the Plaintiff, there can be no valid appointment of the Plaintiff. The documentary evidence viewed in its entirety does not allow this court to deem the appointment to have taken effect the day following the PSC's letter of release. No witness called for the defence [48] The Defendants did not call any witness in support of their case. The Defendants however, did not make a submission of no case to answer, as it did not intend to call any witnesses. The case was left to be decided on the Plaintiff's own evidence. [49] The Plaintiff contended that due to no witness being called on behalf of the Defendants, the Plaintiff's evidence ought to be admitted and remains unrebutted. [50] It is trite that in civil cases, the burden lies on the Plaintiff to prove its case, whether or not the defence calls witnesses to testify. In any event, we find that the case is largely to be determined based on the undisputed documentary evidence. [51] The Defendants are required to call their witness should there be any dispute in relation to the contents of the documents which is not the case herein. [52] In the instant case, we find that the contents of the documents in itself are insufficient to support the Plaintiff's claim that the Defendants had offered him a permanent post and therefore in those circumstances, the Defendants were justified in not calling their witness. Mode of commencement of proceedings [53] The learned HCJ was of the view that there is sufficient public law element that arises from the Plaintiff's suit and the Plaintiff ought to have commenced his action by judicial review proceedings. [54] However, based on our findings above, we find that there is no necessity for us to address this issue. Conclusion [55] Based on the aforesaid reasons, we find no error or misdirection on the part of the learned HCJ in dismissing the Plaintiff's claim. [56] In the result, we see no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned HCJ. As such, we find no merit in the appeal. We unanimously decided to affirm the decision of the High Court and therefore dismissed the appeal with costs of RM15,000.00 subject to allocator. Dated: 25 February 2025 Ahmad Kamal bin Md Shahid Judge Court of Appeal Counsel Appearing: For the appellant: Norazham Bin Yahaya (together with Mohd Murtadza Bin Mohd Mokhtar and Amirul Hafiz Bin Ramli [Messrs Hasif Azham Rizal & Co.] For the respondents: Khairul Aiman bin Kamar Rozaman (together with Muhammad Yazid bin Mohamad Salim and Muhammad Faiz Bin Mohd Zamros [Messrs Mohamed Noor, Amran & Yoon]