PRASHANT KUMAR, J. - (1.) IN this writ application Petitioner prayed for quashing the order dated 14.8.2006 passed in R.M.R. No. 03/2002 -2003 and order dated 3.4.2002 passed in RMA No. 27/1997 -98 and order dated 7.8.1997 passed in Pradhani Appointment Case No. 59 of 1996 -97 by Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively.
(2.) IT appears that Respondent No. 6 filed an application under Section 6 of Santhalpargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provision) Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'aforesaid Act ') for appointment on the post of Pradhan of Mauza -Bansjora on the hereditary basis vide Annexure -1 series. It then appear that Petitioner also applied for appointment on the post of Pradhan under Section 5 of the aforesaid Act. In the said petition, it is stated that father of Respondent No. 6 was dismissed from the post of Pradhan by Deputy Commissioner, Dumka on the ground of misconduct, hence his son (Respondent No. 6) is not eligible for being appointed as Pradhan. It then appears that Respondent No. 4 vide order dated 3.3.1997 (Annexure -5) had considered the objection of Petitioner and decided that appointment of Pradhan of Mauza Bansjora will be made as per the provision contained under Section 5 of the aforesaid Act. Accordingly, he issued notices to the original raiyats inviting objection. It further appears that vide order dated 7.8.1997, Respondent No. 6 was appointed on the post of Pradhan of Mauza Bansjora on the basis of majority of votes of raiyats. Thereafter Petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner vide RMA No. 27 of 97 -98, which was dismissed by order dated 2002 (Annexure -6). Against that order, Petitioner filed a revision vide RMR No. 03 of 2002 -2003 before the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka but the said revision also dismissed vide order dated 18.2006 (Annexure -8). Against the aforesaid orders, present writ application filed. 3 It appears that Respondent No. 1 to 5 had filed a counter affidavit in which they stated that the order passed by Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are valid and in accordance with law. Aforesaid Respondent further stated that the main dispute is in between Petitioner and Respondent No. 6. It is worth mentioning that notice issued to Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and the said notice validly served upon them. Respondent No. 6 had appeared through Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate. However, no counter affidavit filed on his behalf. Respondent No. 7 did not appear.
(3.) IT is submitted by Sri Durga Charan Mishra, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that it is admitted position that Respondent No. 6 was appointed as Pradhan according to provisions contained under Section 5 of the aforesaid Act. It is submitted that as per Section 5 of the aforesaid Act, it is imperative upon a raiyat and/or landlord to file an application for appointment on the post of a Pradhan and then only on his application, consent of two -third Jamabandi raiyat of village can be ascertained. It is submitted that Respondent No. 6 not applied for appointment as Pradhan of the village under Section 5 of the aforesaid Act. It is submitted that Respondent No. 6 applied under Section 6 of the aforesaid Act for his appointment on the post of village Pradhan on hereditary basis. It is submitted that since Respondent No. 4, after considering the objection raised by Petitioner, decided that the post of Pradhan of village Bansjora will be filled up according to Section 5 of the aforesaid Act, therefore, impliedly he rejected the application of Respondent No. 6 filed under Section 6 of the aforesaid Act. It is submitted that Respondent No. 6 had not applied for appointment on the post of Pradhan of village Bansjora under Section 5 of the aforesaid Act, thus, the action of Respondent No. 4 in appointing Respondent No. 6 as village Pradhan is wholly illegal and against the provisions of aforesaid Act. It is further submitted that as per the prescribed Rules if a village Pradhan is dismissed on the ground of misconduct, his heirs are deprived from appointment on the same post. It is submitted that father of Respondent No. 6, namely, Basant Panjiyara was dismissed by Deputy Commissioner, Dumka and said order of dismissal later on confirmed by Divisional Commissioner, Santhalpargana, Dumka by Annexure -7. Under the said circumstance, Respondent No. 6 is not eligible for being appointed as village Pradhan. Accordingly, it is submitted that on this ground also, the appointment of Respondent No. 6 cannot be sustained.;