Selangor State Secretary & Article 52(1) & 52(6) of the Selangor State Constitution

I am reproducing the extract of the Selangor State Constitution in view of the recent issues over the Selangor State Secretary appointment.

Article 52(1)of the Selangor State Constitution

High Highness shall on recommendation of the appropriate Service Commission by instrument under His Sign Manual & the State Seal appoint a person holding whole time office in the public services to be the State Secretary, the State Legal Adviser and the State Financial Officer respectively PROVIDED THAT before acting on the recommendation of the Service Commission His Highness shall consider the advice of the Menteri Besar and may once refer the recommendation back to the Commission in order that it may be considered.

Article 52(6): In the event of there being no Service Commission having jurisdiction in respect of any appointment of any officers mentioned in Clause (1) such appointment may be made by His Highness acting in His discretion.

My views:-
1. Power to appoint the state secretary lies with the Sultan of Selangor subject to certain proviso.
2. First issue that arise is whether there is a Service Commission having jurisdiction in respect of the appointment. I am not privy to such information so I would made my assumption as follows:-

(A)If there is such Service Commission having such jurisdiction,
then the Second issue is whether the Sultan did consider the advice of Menteri Besar of Selangor before the appointment. There is no definition of how the advice of MB Selangor is deemed made or considered by the Sultan nor is there any formal procedure lay out under the State Constitution. But the wording "shall" would be deem as compulsory for the MB Selangor's advice to be considered, though not compulsory to be followed.

Only clear cut evidence that may show whether the Sultan did consider the MB Selangor advice is if such advice was referred back to the Service Commission (but such referral is clearly on discretionary basis by His Highness - based on the usage of the term "may once refer"). Other than that, the Sultan would be the only one to know whether His Highness did consider the advice made by MB Selangor, whether made orally or in writing or any other form of communication. It would then be for MB Selangor to show that he did not may such advice (if that's the case).

(B) If there is no such Service Commission having such jurisdiction,
then under Article 52(6), such appointment (of the state secretary) may be made by His Highness acting in His discretion. The second issue would then be whether the proviso in Article 52(1) to consider the MB Selangor advice would be applicable - since Article 52(6) provides that "such appointment may be made by His Highness acting in His discretion". That remain to be intepreted by judiciary.
If the proviso for MB Selangor advise is applicable, then my above opinion on the manner as to how MB Selangor advice be considered by the Sultan would be repeated here.
It would then be a question of facts whether MB Selangor did provide such advice to the Sultan Selangor and whether the Sultan Selangor did consider such advice.

Note:
My aforesaid opinion is not meant to conclude anything other than stating my opinion as to the laws in an objective manner.