The Patna High Court has dismissed Letters Patent Appeal No.1001 of 2023 filed by Manoj Prasad, thereby affirming the judgment dated 09.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.14258 of 2022. A Division Bench comprising Justices Sudhir Singh and Shailendra Singh held that a person cannot be permitted to take inconsistent stands regarding his caste identity to derive electoral benefits from a seat reserved for Extremely Backward Classes. The appellant was elected as Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Bagahi Baghambarpur in 2021 from an EBC reserved seat. Subsequently, respondent no.4 lodged a complaint under Section 136(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 alleging that the appellant did not belong to the Extremely Backward Class category. The State Election Commission referred the caste verification issue to the competent Caste Scrutiny Committee, which, after detailed enquiry including a CID report, concluded vide order dated 12.01.2023 that the appellant belongs to the Koeri (Kushwaha) caste and not Dangi (EBC).
The Division Bench, after independent scrutiny of the records, found that the foundational land revenue records (khatiyan) of the appellant’s ancestor, Bhagelu Mahato, clearly recorded the caste as Koeri (Kushwaha). Such contemporaneous official records carry a presumption of correctness and constitute primary evidence for determination of caste status. The Court further noted that in 2018, while purchasing land, the appellant himself had declared his caste as Koeri in an official document. This conduct was held to be highly significant, and the Bench observed that the appellant cannot be allowed to oscillate between two caste identities, claiming to be Koeri for one purpose and Dangi for another depending upon the benefit sought. Such shifting stands not only undermine the sanctity of the reservation system but also strike at the root of fairness in public administration. The Bench clarified that the 2011 GAD instructions permitting issuance of a Dangi caste certificate on the basis of local enquiry even where revenue records reflect Koeri cannot be interpreted to legitimize contradictory declarations or to override consistent documentary evidence. The purpose of those instructions is to address genuine cases requiring verification beyond documents, not to permit adoption of shifting caste identities.
The Court also rejected the contention that the State Election Commission acted without jurisdiction, noting that it had merely forwarded the matter to the competent Caste Scrutiny Committee and had not itself adjudicated the caste dispute. Relying on established precedents such as R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala (2004) 2 SCC 105 and the doctrine of approbate and reprobate as explained in Union of India v. N. Murugesan (2022) 2 SCC 25, the Bench held that a person who secures benefits on the basis of a false or doubtful caste claim cannot be permitted to retain them, as such election stands vitiated from inception. The Caste Scrutiny Committee was found to have duly considered all relevant material, including revenue records, the appellant’s own declarations, and the CID enquiry report, and its findings were neither perverse nor violative of principles of natural justice. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Division Bench concluded that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge call for no interference in intra-court appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed and all pending applications were disposed of.
Case Title: Manoj Prasad v. The State Election Commission (Panchayat) & Ors.
Case No.: Letters Patent Appeal No.1001 of 2023 (arising out of C.W.J.C. No.14258 of 2022)
Date of Judgment: 22 April 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shailendra Singh
Click HERE for full Judgment
Lawcutor 