C A JAGANNATHAN Vs. T E SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only ground of appeal raised here is whether the suit is maintainable under Sec.70 of H.R.8 C.E. Act ("the Act" in short).

(2.) THE appellant was rendering "Ulthurai" service at the Devarajaswamy temple in Kancheepuram. He had to go overseas for personal reasons. When he returned and requested resumption of duties as "Ulthurai", objections were raised by the devotees on the ground that he had disqualified himself by going overseas. THE Deputy Commissioner, H.R.8 C.E. in his revision dated 3.2.1993 under Sec.21 of the Act reversed the order of the Deputy Commissioner. Against this, a suit under Sec.70 was filed by the respondents herein to set aside the order of the Commissioner. THE suit was decreed and therefore the "disqualified" person has filed the appeal.

(3.) IT might seem anachronistic in these days of jet travels and shrinking globe to even consider the question whether overseas travel would amount to disqualification. The very idea might seem so preposterous that the knee-jerk response would be to hold that there cannot be any disqualification because a person had gone abroad. This is one point of view. Another point of view is to look at it like a social club which forms its own rules and regulations of permitting entry to the club premises. IT might appear totally incomprehensible to a person as to why the club should insist on a person wearing a coloured shirt or proper shoes and not slippers before he is permitted entry. One remembers the famous incident where the artist M.F.Hussian was prevented entry into a club because he wore slippers. But those are the rules of the club and the person who wants to enter the club is bound to follow the rules. No one can knock on the doors of the court praying for a mandatory order to permit entry into the club. This is another angle.