Order The question raised in this writ application is as to whether the services of the Development Officers working under the L.I.C. can be requisitioned to be assigned with the election duty for ensuing Panchayat Election scheduled to be held from 25.11.2010. 2. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by referring to the provision as enshrined under Section 67 (3) (v) read with Section 2 (xxxi) of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 submits that only the services of the employees/officers of the State Government or of the Company owned, controlled and financed by the State Government or the Organization receiving aid from the State Government can be requisitioned for the election duty and as such, the State Election Officer (Panchayat) and/or State Election Commissioner do not have any authority to requisition the services of the officers/employees of the Central Government/Central Government Undertakings or Autonomous Body not aided by the State Government for Panchayat election and, therefore, the letter dated 13.10.2010 (Annexure-1), issued by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Election Officer (Panchayat), Hazaribagh requisitioning the services of the development officers of the L.I.C. posted in the district of Hazaribagh, is fit to be set aside. 3. As against this, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the State Election Commission, submits that before the amendment brought under Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act 2001 and the Representation of the People Act, 1951, only the employees of the State Government or the Public Company or the State Aided Organization used to be assigned with the election duty in the Panchayat election but now an amendment has been brought in Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act and also in the Representation of the People Act by virtue of which, the services now can be requisitioned of Local Authorities, Universities, Nationalized Banks, L.I.C/Government Undertakings etc. Learned counsel in support of the submission did produce a letter addressed to the Chief Election Officer of the State and Union Territories. Thus, it is submitted that Deputy Commissioner cum District Election Officer (Panchayat), Hazaribagh has now got every power to requisition the services of the development officers of the L.I.C posted in the district of Hazaribagh for assigning with election duty. 4. Thus, it is submitted that Deputy Commissioner cum District Election Officer (Panchayat), Hazaribagh has now got every power to requisition the services of the development officers of the L.I.C posted in the district of Hazaribagh for assigning with election duty. 4. No doubt, it is true that under Section 67 (3) (v) read with Section 2 (xxxi) of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001, only the employees of the State Government and its instrumentality can be requisitioned for assigning with the election duly but now by virtue of an amendment brought in Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 and also in Representation of the People Act, 1951, there has been significant changes. 5. Under amended provision of Section 159 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the services of the employees of the local authorities, Universities incorporated by or under the Central Provincial or State Act, the Government Company as defined in Section 17 of the Company Act, 1956 and any other Institution concerned or undertakings which is established by or under a Central Provincial State Act or its control or finance wholly or substantially by funds provided directly or indirectly by the Central Government or the State Government can be requisitioned. Thus, the said provision does take Development Officers within its fold. Further, by virtue of incorporation of a• new Section 68A in the Principal Act through an amendment the service of the employees of the concerned mentioned above can be requisitioned for conducting Panchayat election. The said Section 68A reads as follows:- "68A, In case any doubt arises or inadequacy is felt in giving effect to any provision of this Act in respect of preparation of electoral rolls or conduct of elections, the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 or the Representation of the People Act 1951 and the rules Made there under, as the case may be, shall' mutatis mutandis apply." 6. However, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan submits that the provision of Section 68A of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Ordinance, 2010 can be invoked only in a situation where there arises doubt in giving effect of the provision of the Act but since there has been no ambiguity in Section 67 (3) (v) of Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001, there is no justification in requisitioning the services of the employees of the L.I.C. by taking recourse of Section 68A of the Amended Act. 7. 7. I do not find any substance in the aforesaid submission, as Section 68A of the Act does not speak about its applicability only in case of doubt being arisen in giving effect to the provision of the Act but also in a case where inadequacy is felt in giving effect to any provision of this Act in respect of preparation of electoral roll or conduct of elections. 8. Under the circumstances, I do not find any illegality on the part of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Election Officer (Panchayat), Hazarihagh in requisitioning the services of the development officers of the L.I.C. for holding Panchayat election keeping in view the relevant amendment brought under the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 and also the Representation of the People Act. 9. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.