ETWA TANA BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) This writ petition has been for a direction on the State- respondents not to allow the Mahamantri Akhil Bhartiya Tana Bhagat Committee, Bamandiha, Lohardaga ( respondent no. 5) from participating in the Admission/Selection Committee, and for quashing that part of letter no. 240 dated 25.3.2004 issued under the signature of respondent no. 4-Deputy Director, Welfare, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi , by which respondent no. 5 was also invited along with petitioner in a meeting.

(3.) Counsel for the State, referring to the counter affidavit, submitted that there are two factions of Tana Bhagat, one is "Tana Bhagat Shist Mandli", Kisko, headed by Shri Etwa Tana Bhagat and other is "Akhil Bhartiya Tana Bhagat", Bamandiha, headed by Shiva Shankar Tana Bhagat; in the capacity of Adhyaksha of the respective faction. Both the organizations are daggers drawn and for petty reasons, they used to lodge complaints against each other. It is true that in letter no. 2014 dated 15.10.2001, the Secretary, Department of Welfare, Jharkhand, Ranchi said that one of the office bearers namely Mahamantri/Adhyaksha/Sangathan Mantri of "Tana Bhagat Shist Mandli" is to be co-opted as one of the members in the Admission Selection Committee constituted at Divisional level under the Chairmanship of Deputy Director, Welfare, but keeping in view the said position, both the factions were invited in the admission/ Selection committee meeting held on 10.4.2004, for the purpose of transparency in selection for admission, in the interest of Tana Bhagat, and there was no intention of violation of the said order dated 15.10.2001. He further submitted that the schools mentioned in para 4 of the writ petition have been established for the students of scheduled tribe and Tana Bhagat and as respondent no. 5 is also the office bearers of an Association of Tana Bhagat, therefore he has right to see the interest of Tana Bhagat and moreover by issuance of the impugned letter, petitioner's right has not been affected because he was also invited to participate in the meeting along with respondent no. 5. He further submitted that only in the prayer portion, it is generally said that respondent no. 5 is a fake Association but nothing has been said in the writ petition that respondent no. 5 is a fake Association.