JUDGMENT :

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.

The instant matter has been placed before this Larger Bench on reference being made by the learned Division Bench vide order dated 9th March 2018. The learned Single Judge had earlier vide order dated 19th August 2016 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3164 of 2005 referred the matter to the learned Division Bench taking note of divergent views expressed by the learned Division Benches on the procedure for appointment of a Pradhan under the SPT Act, 1949.

2. In W.P.(C) No. 3164 of 2005 by the impugned order dated 5th April 2005, passed in Revenue Misc. Revision No. 137/1998-99 preferred by the 16 Anna raiyats of the Mouza and Revenue Misc. Revision No. 370/2000-2001 preferred by private respondent no. 5 herein, the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division has set aside the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jamtara and upheld by Deputy Commissioner, Dumka appointing the petitioner Alamuni Hansda as Pradhan of village Saharberia, P.S. Bindapathar, Sub-Division Jamtara, District Dumka. Petitioner admittedly is the married daughter of the erstwhile Pradhan namely Maral Hansda and also his second wife Hopni Kisku, mother of the petitioner was also declared as Pradhan after death of Maral Hansda. The Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division has held that in view of the serious dispute about the appointment of Pradhan by the raiyats of the Mouza, as per provisions contained in Schedule-V, Clause-1, the appointment of Headman should be made in accordance with village custom and before confirming any appointment Deputy Commissioner shall certify himself that the candidate is generally acceptable to the Raiyats. He accordingly directed initiation of a separate proceeding under Section 5 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act (SPT Act hereinafter for short) as per the procedure of appointment of village Headman of Khas village, so that democratic institutions can be well maintained and the raiyats may decide their next village Pradhan.

3. The learned Single Judge framed two issues for consideration upon submission of the parties:

(i) Whether the petitioner being a female heir of the original deceased Maral Hansda does have the hereditary right to be appointed as a Pradhan of the said village?

(ii) In view of the judgment rendered by learned Division Bench of this court in the case of Sogen Murmu v. State of Jharkhand reported in 2012 (2) JCR Page-1 (Jhr) in such circumstances, whether the post of Gram Pradhan can at all be held to be hereditary?

4. Taking note of the divergence in views rendered by learned Division Bench judgment in the case of Sogen Murmu (Supra) vis-a-vis the judgments rendered in the case of Thakur Hembrom v. State of Bihar [1980 BLJR 448] and in the case of Baisakhi Harijan and Ghanshyam Mandal [1985 BBCJ 131] and Smt. Swarnlata Devi v. State of Jharkhand [(2003) 3 JLJR 724] learned Single Judge found it proper to refer the matter to the learned Division Bench; whether the issue requires consideration by a Larger Bench. Vide order dated 9th March 2018, the learned Division Bench referred the matter for consideration by the Full Bench of this Court inter alia observing as follows:—

“The point involved in the case is for appointment of village Pradhan. The petitioner, herein, being the daughter of the erstwhile Pradhan was appointed as Pradhan of the village, by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara, and that order was also confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara. However, in revision that order has been annulled by the Commissioner, Santhal Parganas, directing the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara to initiate a separate proceeding under Section 5 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, for appointment of the village Headman of the Khas village, so that democratic institution can be well maintained and the raiyats may decide their next village Pradhan. The petitioner herein, being the daughter of the erstwhile Pradhan, is claiming her right, being the legal heir of erstwhile Pradh