1. An employee challenged a directive from an administrative superior to vacate an office room occupied for performing official duties. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 68108
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, Preeta A.K, JJ
A.R. Narayanan – Appellant
Versus
Malabar Devaswom Board – Respondent
WA NO. 2279 OF 2026|WP(C) NO.24319 OF 2026
Important Points
Employees have no vested right to occupy specific office rooms for official duties, and the administrative authority has the absolute discretion to reallocate space based on administrative exigencies.
Subject
Service Law - Administrative Discretion
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Service Law - Administrative Discretion - Right to occupy specific office space - No employee has a vested right to claim occupation of a particular room for official duties; the administrative authority possesses the discretion to utilize available space within the establishment based on administrative exigencies. (Para 3)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Challenge to Administrative Communication - A communication issued for administrative purposes and space utilization does not constitute a challengeable order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if no legal right is infringed. (Para 2, 4)
Issues: Whether an employee has a vested right to occupy a particular room for official duties that can be protected through a Writ Petition.
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Challenge to Administrative Communication - A communication issued for administrative purposes and space utilization does not constitute a challengeable order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if no legal right is infringed. (Para 2, 4)
Issues: Whether an employee has a vested right to occupy a particular room for official duties that can be protected through a Writ Petition.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Bejoy Joseph P.J., M. Ramesh Chander (Sr.), Govind G. Nair, Balu Tom, Bonny Benny
For the Respondents: R. Ranjanie, Binoy Vasudevan, K. Mohanakannan
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Bejoy Joseph P.J., M. Ramesh Chander (Sr.), Govind G. Nair, Balu Tom, Bonny Benny
For the Respondents: R. Ranjanie, Binoy Vasudevan, K. Mohanakannan
Table of Contents
2. The petitioner contended against the administrative direction for vacating the office, whereas the respondents maintained the authority to regulate office space utilization. (Para 1 , 2 )
3. The court observed that the communication challenged was a purely administrative measure and that employees possess no vested right to demand particular office space for official functions. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. Administrative authorities possess the discretion to allocate and regulate workspace usage, which cannot be challenged via Writ Petition absent any violation of a vested legal right. (Para 3 )
5. The Writ Appeal is dismissed, affirming the judgment of the single judge. (Para 5 )
6. Does an employee have a legally enforceable right to occupy a specific room for official work?
No. An employee has no vested right to claim or retain a specific place or room for the discharge of official functions, as the allocation of workspace is an administrative decision by the competent authority. (Para 3 )
7. Can an internal administrative communication regarding workspace allocation be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution?
No. An internal administrative communication issued in the exercise of discretion for functional exigencies does not typically provide a cause of action for judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. (Para 2 , 3 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
2026:KER:84638
WA NO. 2279 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.10.2026 IN WP(C) NO.24319 OF 2026 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
A.R. NARAYANAN
AGED 54 YEARS,
S/O.LATE A.M.RAMACHANDRAN EMBRANTHIRI,
ANILAKKAD MANA, KADAMKODE, KARINGARAPULLY. P.O.,
PALAKKAD, PIN – 678551.
BY ADVS.
SRI. BEJOY JOSEPH P.J.
SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.)
SRI. GOVIND G. NAIR
SRI.BALU TOM
SRI.BONNY BENNY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSEFED COMPLEX,
ERANHIPPALAM P.O., CALICUT, PIN – 673006.
2 THE COMMISSIONER
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX,
ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673006.
3 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, PALAKKAD DIVISION,
PALAKKAD, PIN – 678001.
4 SREE MANAPPULLY BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, EAST
YAKKARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678013.
5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SREE MANAPPULLY BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM, EAST
YAKKARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678013.
6 FIT PERSON
SREE MANAPPULLY BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM, EAST
YAKKARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678013.
BY ADVS.
SMT.R.RANJANIE, STANDING COUNSEL
SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.11.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
Preeta A.K, J.
1. This Writ Appeal impugns the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.24319 of 2026. The issue involved pertains to the issuance of a direction by the 5th respondent- Executive Officer to the appellant, an employee under the 4th respondent, to hand over vacant possession of the room, which was occupied by him in his capacity as a Lower Division Clerk.
2. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both parties, dismissed the said Writ Petition on the ground that Ext.P6 is not a communication that can be challenged by the appellant by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Admittedly, the appellant is occupying a room for discharge of his official duties on the instructions of the 5th respondent. No employee has any vested right to claim that he should be permitted to occupy a particular place or room for the discharge of his official functions, as it is for the administrative authority to decide how best to utilise the available space in the establishment. Ext.P6 is only a communication issued by the 5th respondent in administrative exigency.
4. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with Ext.P6, whereby the 5th respondent has exercised his discretion in utilising the space in the establishment under his control.
5. The Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
PREETA A.K
JUDGE
ams
