Kerala High Court
Vineeth N K vs Matsyafed, (Kerala State Co-Operative ... on 4 December, 2025
WA NO. 2471 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:93494
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M. MANOJ
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WA NO. 2471 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.03.2025 IN WP(C) NO.46420 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
1 VINEETH N K
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. KRISHNAN UNNI N, NOOROMKUTTIL MADOM, MADAKKATHANAM P.O,
VAZHAKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686670
2 SAJEEV L
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. LAKSHMANAN, MUNDUVELIL, PADINJATTAMMURI, SOORANAD NORTH, KOLLAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 690561
3 MANU P
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. PIYARAJ, KATTAMUDI HOUSE, MACHIPLAVU P.O, ADIMALI, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN
- 685561
4 RENI JOSE J
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O. D JESSAYYAN, RENI NIVAS, VATTAVILA, KALLAYAM P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695043
BY ADV SRI.T.U. SUJITH KUMAR
WA NO. 2471 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:93494
RESPONDENT/S:
1 MATSYAFED, (KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION OF FISHERIES
DEVELOPMENT LTD.)
KAMALESHWARAM, MANACAUD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PIN - 695009
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
MATSYAFED, (KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION OF FISHERIES
DEVELOPMENT LTD.), KAMALESHWARAM, MANACAUD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695009
BY SRI T.P. PRADEEP, SC
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING RESERVED ON 03.11.2025, THE COURT ON 04.12.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 2471 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:93494
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
Heard C.M. Appln No.1 of 2025 for condonation of delay. The appeal has been filed with a delay of 179 days. Having perused the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Hence, delay is condoned and the appeal is heard finally.
2. The present intra-court appeal, filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, assails the judgment dated 13.03.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 46420 of 2024, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
3. The appellants/petitioners had filed the writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
"(I) Call for the records leading to Exhibit-P4 and quash the same by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari.
WA NO. 2471 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:93494 (II) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to Issue orders promoting the petitioners to the vacant post of Assistant Managers, within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court; and (III) Issue any such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper considering the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.
(IV) Petitioners undertakes that the English translation of documents in the vernacular language will be produced as and when directed by this Hon'ble Court."
4. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants, who are working as Superintendents in the Kerala State Co-operative Federation for Fisheries Development Limited (Matsyafed), filed the writ petition challenging Ext.P4 order dated 01.10.2024. The said order was issued in compliance with the judgment dated 30.08.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 28659 of 2024, whereby the representation submitted by the appellants was rejected. The appellants, being Superintendents, are seeking promotion to the post of Assistant Manager (Personnel). The post of Assistant Manager (Personnel) is to be filled up only from the feeder WA NO. 2471 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:93494 category of Superintendents, such as the appellants.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that there are 36 posts of Assistant Manager. The Special Rules for the Kerala State Co-operative Federation for Fisheries Development Limited do not specify the number of posts allotted to each category of Assistant Manager mentioned therein. Therefore, the management of Matsyafed cannot arbitrarily decide that only one post of Assistant Manager (Personnel) shall be filled up by promotion from among the Superintendents.
6. The learned Single Judge, relying on Ext.P2 decision of Matsyafed, concluded that there is only one post of Assistant Manager (Personnel) and that the said post is not vacant. Therefore, the appellants cannot seek a writ of mandamus to promote them against the post/vacancies which are not meant for promotion of Superintendents. Since no vacancy exists in the post of Assistant Manager (Personnel), no promotion can be effected to that post. The writ petition was, therefore, WA NO. 2471 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:93494 dismissed.
7. Heard Mr T.U. Sujith Kumar learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr T.P. Pradeep, learned Standing Counsel for Matsyafed.
8. Upon perusal of the additional affidavit dated 07.02.2025 filed on behalf of the second respondent, it is seen that the number of posts in each category of Assistant Manager has been disclosed therein. Only one post of Assistant Manager (Personnel) has been sanctioned, which is to be filled by promotion from the cadre of Superintendents, and the said vacancy has already been filled by promoting an eligible Superintendent. Therefore, there is presently no vacancy in that post.
9. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that, under the Special Rules, the management of Matsyafed cannot arbitrarily decide that only one post of Assistant Manager (Personnel) shall be filled by promotion is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. The materials on record clearly indicate that the sanctions and distribution of posts among various categories of Assistant Manager WA NO. 2471 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:93494 are administrative matters within the domain of the management, and there is nothing on record to show that such a decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, or contrary to the Special Rules.
10. Admittedly, a total of 36 posts of Assistant Manager have been notified. The Federation requires considerable technical assistance in the conduct of its business, and the nature of the work is largely technical, necessitating specialized skills and expertise in fisheries science. The Superintendents, however, are not technical experts in the said field. The Management, therefore, has every right to fill up the posts in accordance with the functional requirements of the Federation.
11. Insofar as the post of Assistant Manager (Personnel) is concerned, the same is administrative in nature, and according to the Management, a single post is sufficient to meet the administrative needs of the Federation. The appellants cannot insist that there should be more than one such post. As already held, the Management is competent to allocate and bifurcate the 36 posts of Assistant Manager in accordance WA NO. 2471 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:93494 with the functional requirements of the organization.
12. We find no error or infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, this writ appeal, being devoid of merit and substance, is hereby dismissed. All Interlocutory Applications as regards interim matters stand closed.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE Sd/-
P.M. MANOJ JUDGE jjj WA NO. 2471 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:93494 APPENDIX OF WA NO. 2471 OF 2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION AND THE REPLY RECEIVED FROM THE FISHERIES DIRECTOR DATED 08.04.2025. Annexure-A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION AND THE REPLY RECEIVED FROM THE FISHERIES AND PORT DEPARTMENT DATED 26.03.2025. Annexure-A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED UNDER RTI ACT FROM THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION OF FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT LTD. DATED 15.07.2025.