Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: matsyafed in Vineeth N K vs Matsyafed, (Kerala State Co-Operative ... on 4 December, 2025Matching Fragments
(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 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 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 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.