Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: matsyafed in Vineeth N K vs 1. Matsyafed, (Kerala State ... on 30 August, 2024Matching Fragments
The petitioners state that they are working as Superintendent in the 1st respondent, Matsyafed. They state that all recruitments, promotions etc. of the 1st respondent are effected as per Ext.P1 Special Rules. It is contended by the petitioners that they are eligible to be promoted as Assistant Manager in the 1st respondent and that there are 34 vacancies lying vacant out of 36 sanctioned posts. The petitioners 1 and 2 have submitted Exts.P3, P4 and P5 representations before the 2 nd respondent. The limited prayer of the petitioners is for a consideration of their request for promotion to the post of Assistant Managers.
2024:KER:65623 WP(C) NO.28659 OF 2024
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.T.P.Pradeep, the learned Standing Counsel for the Matsyafed.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions made across the Bar, there will be a direction to the 2 nd respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.