Patna High Court
Manoj PrasadversusThe State Election Commission (Panchayat)
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The High Court upheld the Single Judge’s findings that the appellant belongs to the Koeri caste and dismissed the intra‑court appeal.
Summary
Manoj Prasad, elected Mukhiya in 2021 from an Extremely Backward Class (EBC) seat, was challenged by a private respondent under Section 136(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 for allegedly not belonging to the Dangi (EBC) caste. The State Election Commission referred the caste‑status issue to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, which, after examining land revenue records, the appellant’s own 2018 declaration, and a CID report, concluded that he belongs to the Koeri (Kushwaha) OBC caste. The appellant contested this finding, arguing that the Commission’s referral was beyond its jurisdiction, that the Committee violated natural‑justice principles, and that the 2011 GAD instructions allow a Dangi certificate despite revenue records. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding the revenue records and the appellant’s own Koeri declaration as decisive, and the High Court affirmed this decision, emphasizing the doctrine of approbate and reprobate and the need to prevent inconsistent caste claims. Consequently, the intra‑court appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the State Election Commission had jurisdiction to refer the appellant's caste status to the General Administration Department under the Full Bench decision in Rajani Kumari v. State Election Commission.
- Whether the Caste Scrutiny Committee's determination that the appellant belongs to the Koeri (Kushwaha) caste is legally valid despite the appellant's claim of Dangi (EBC) status.
- Whether the principles of natural justice were violated in the proceedings before the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
- Whether a person who has previously declared himself as Koeri for land transactions can later claim Dangi status to obtain benefit from an EBC‑reserved seat.
- Whether the order of the learned Single Judge should be interfered with under intra‑court appellate jurisdiction.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 — s. 136(2)
Subjects
- caste verification
- reservation
- election disqualification
- false caste claim
- natural justice
- approbate and reprobate
- intra‑court appeal
- Bihar Panchayat Raj Act
- State Election Commission
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1001 of 2023
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14258 of 2022
======================================================
Manoj Prasad, Son of Ramekbal Prasad, Resident of village- Baghambarpur,
P.O. Patjirwa, P.S. Shree Nagar, District West Champaran at Bettiah, presently
Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Bagahi Baghambarpur, Block- Bairiya,
District - West Champaran at Bettiah.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State Election Commission (Panchayat) Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel
Path, Patna through the State Election Commissioner.
2. The State Election Commissioner,
The State Election Commission (Panchayat), Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel
Path, Patna.
3. The Secretary,
The State Election Commission (Panchayat ), Sone Bhawan Birchand Patel
Path, Patna.
4. Santosh Kumar, son of Baidyanath Sah, Resident of village- Bagahi, Ward
No.8, P.O. Patjirwa, P.S. Shree Nagar, District-West Champaran at Bettiah.
5. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, General Administration
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. S.B.K.Manglam, Advocate
Mr.Awnish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Vikash Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Saroj Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG-3
For the Commission : Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Girish Kumar, Advocate
For Pvt. Resp. No.4 : Mr. Santosh Bharti, Advocate
Mr. Apurva Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 22-04-2026
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1001 of 2023 dt.22-04-2026
2/14
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present intra court appeal has been preferred
against the judgment and order dated 09.08.2023 passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 14258 of 2022, whereby the learned Single judge
dismissed the writ petition.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was
elected as a Mukhiya in the year 2021 on the seat which was
reserved for extremely backward class candidates. Thereafter
Respondent No. 4 lodged a complaint under Section 136(2) of
the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 seeking his disqualification
on the ground that he does not belong to the Extremely
Backward Class. The said complaint was registered as Case No.
72 of 2021, and upon notice, the appellant appeared and filed
his written statement disputing the allegations and asserting that
the documents relied upon by the complainant were fabricated.
Upon consideration, the State Election Commission referred the
issue of caste status to the Caste Scrutiny Committee vide order
dated 15.07.2022. Being aggrieved by the said order of
reference dated 15.07.2022, the appellant preferred the writ
petition being C.W.J.C. No. 14258 of 2022 before this Court,
inter alia, challenging the jurisdiction of the State Election
Commission to make such reference.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1001 of 2023 dt.22-04-2026
3/14
4. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Caste
Scrutiny Committee proceeded with the matter and, upon
enquiry, returned a finding vide order dated 12.01.2023
declaring the appellant to be of Koeri (Kushwaha) caste. The
appellant, thereafter, also challenged the said order of the Caste
Scrutiny Committee in the pending writ proceedings; however,
the writ petition ultimately came to be dismissed by the learned
Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 09.08.2023, giving
rise to the present intra-court appeal.
5. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ
petition, made the following observations:
75. This Court has gone through the facts of the case
as also the submissions put forward by the rival
parties and finds force in the averments made by the
learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
respondent no. 4, the State as also the Election
Commission.
76. As per the documents on record, the ‘Dangi’
caste was incorporated as a separate caste in the
year 1995 and has not been carved out from
Kushwaha/Koeri as pointed out by learned Senior
Counsel for the respondent no. 4 and is also reflected
from the Gazette notification.
77. Further, as per the letter no. 673 dated
08.03.2011 issued by ‘the GAD’, the land revenue
record is the foremost document for the issuance of
caste certificate and only in its absence, the other
documents have to be relied upon.
78. In the case of the petitioner, the admitted fact is
that his ancestor, Bhagelu Mahato has been shown in
the ‘Khatiyan’ as ‘Koeri’ (Khushwaha) .
79. Even the petitioner purchased the land in 2018
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1001 of 2023 dt.22-04-2026
4/14
showing himself to be of ‘Koeri’ caste. Further, as
per the findings of the Caste Scrutiny Committee;
one Santosh Kumar, son of Nandlal Prasad of village
Baghambarpur, P.O. Patjirwa, Shree Nagar, West
Champaran who is a Government Teacher in
Bhagambarpur Panchayat and own cousin of
petitioner is having a ‘Koeri’ caste certificate.
80. In view of such unimpeachable evidences before
the Caste Scrutiny Committee which included the
report submitted by ‘the CID’ showing the petitioner
to be a ‘Koeri’ (Khushwaha) caste; it rightly came to
the finding communicated vide memo no 863 dated
12.01.2023 which cannot be faulted upon.
81. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no. 4
has rightly pointed out that the Inquiry Committee of
‘the CID’ which submitted its report to the Caste
Scrutiny Committee (and formed basis for coming to
the said conclusion vide letter no. 1812 dated
18.10.2022) also incorporated the fact that the
Santosh Kumar, cousin brother of the petitioner and
the Government Teacher has got a caste certificate
showing himself as a ‘Koeri’ caste which comes
under OBC category.
82. Against the said unimpeachable
evidence/documents/records, the only document on
which the petitioner is harping upon is a letter issued
by the Joint Secretary dated 06.04.2011 which was
communicated to the District Magistrate, Munger,
copy whereof was sent to the Commissioner, Munger
Division, Munger in response to their query dated
01.03.2011 and 04.03.2011. The same has already
been rebutted/clarified by the learned Senior
Counsel for the respondent no. 4 as incorporated
above that it was district specific, person specific
and even then direction was given to have enquiry
done by the Circle Officer.
83. Having gone through the matter as also the rival
submissions, the facts that are on record is/are that:
(i) in the Land Revenue Record, the ancestor of
Bhagelu Mahto has been inscribed as ‘Koeri’
in the ‘khatiyan’;
(ii) the petitioner himself purchased a land in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1001 of 2023 dt.22-04-2026
5/14
2018 showing himself as ‘Koeri’ caste.
(iii) as per the gazette notification (letter no.
673 dated 08.03.2011), the revenue record of
father/ancestor is one of the important criteria
for verification;
(iv) further only in its absence, the ground
verification is/are required;
(v) the ‘Sarpanch’ provided ganeology showing
relationship of the petitioner with late Bhagelu
Mahato;
(vi) ‘Dangi’ caste is different from ‘Koeri’ caste
which came to be included earlier under Other
Backward Class in 1995 and later in 2015
under Extremely Backward Class;
(vii) ‘the CID’ accordingly submitted its
report;
(viii) the Caste Scrutiny Committee thereafter
came to a definite finding that the petitioner
does not belong to the ‘Dangi’ Caste.
(84) xx xx xx
xx xx xx
xx xx xx
89. This Court thus observes that the petitioner
cannot be allowed to change colours like the
Chameleons inasmuch as he cannot become a
‘Koeri’ (under OBC category) to purchase a land in
2018 and immediately thereafter turn into a ‘Dangi’
(under EBC category) to contest 2021 election from
an Extremely Backward Class seat.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the order dated
15.07.2022 passed by the State Election Commission, whereby
the matter relating to the appellant’s caste status was referred to
the General Administration Department, is wholly without
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1001 of 2023 dt.22-04-2026
6/14
jurisdiction and contrary to the law laid down by the Full Bench
in Rajani Kumari & Ors. v. State Election Commission & Ors.
reported in 2019 4 PLJR 673, which mandates that disputed
questions of caste status are to be adjudicated by the competent
fact-finding authority in accordance with law. It is further
submitted that the finding of the Caste Scrutiny Committee
declaring the appellant to be of Koeri (Kushwaha) caste is
arbitrary and perverse, inasmuch as it runs contrary to the
binding instructions issued by the General Administration
Department, particularly letter dated 06.04.2011 and subsequent
reiterations, which clearly permit issuance of Dangi caste
certificate on the basis of local enquiry even where revenue
records reflect Koeri (Kushwaha). It is argued that once the
appellant was granted caste certificates in 2016 and 2021 on the
basis of due enquiry by the competent authority and no infirmity
was found in such enquiry, there was no justification for the
Committee to take a contrary view.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits
that the entire proceeding before the Caste Scrutiny Committee
stands vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice. The
Committee arbitrarily rejected the appellant’s request for
adjournment despite medical grounds of counsel, thereby
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1001 of 2023 dt.22-04-2026
7/14
denying effective opportunity of hearing. Further, relevant
documents produced by the appellant were discarded on
untenable grounds, while reliance was placed on disputed and
allegedly forged materials. It is thus submitted that there was
complete non-consideration of material evidence placed on
record by the appellant. On the aforesaid grounds, it is
submitted that the impugned judgment of the learned Single
Judge, affirming such findings, is liable to be set aside.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
submits that the caste status of the appellant has already been
duly examined and verified by the State Level Caste Scrutiny
Committee and, therefore, the determination made by such
competent authority does not call for interference.
9. It is further submitted that the appellant has, at
different points of time, projected himself as belonging to Koeri
(Kushwaha) category for certain purposes, including official and
transactional matters, and thereafter claimed to be Dangi
(Extremely Backward Class) for the purpose of contesting
election from a reserved seat. It is further submitted that the
appellant was provided adequate opportunity during the course
of proceedings and the principles of natural justice have been
duly complied with. The allegations to the contrary are
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1001 of 2023 dt.22-04-2026
8/14
unfounded and have been raised only to assail a well-reasoned
order. The respondent, therefore, submits that the impugned
judgment warrants no interference in intra-court appeal.
10. The limited issue which arises for consideration is
as to whether the judgment and order dated 09.08.2023 passed
by the learned Single Judge, in the facts and circumstances of
the present case, warrants interference by this Court in exercise
of its intra-court appellate jurisdiction.
11. At the outset, this Court notes that the learned
Single Judge has undertaken a detailed examination of the
documentary evidence and has rightly recorded that the
foundational records, particularly the land revenue record
(khatiyan), reflect the caste of the appellant’s ancestor as Koeri
(Kushwaha). Such revenue records, being contemporaneous and
maintained in the ordinary course of official business, carry a
presumption of correctness and constitute primary evidence for
determination of caste status. This Court, upon independent
scrutiny, finds no reason to discard the evidentiary value of such
records.
12. Further, it is an admitted position that the
appellant himself, in the year 2018, while entering into a land
transaction, declared his caste as Koeri. This conduct of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1001 of 2023 dt.22-04-2026
9/14
appellant, reflected in an official and voluntary declaration,
assumes considerable significance. The appellant has been
unable to provide a justification as to how he declared his caste
as Koeri in the said document, and later declared his caste as
Dangi for purposes of election.
13. The learned Single Judge has rightly taken note of
this aspect and has drawn an adverse inference with regard to
the consistency and credibility of the appellant’s claim. A person
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 to be derived. Such conduct
not only undermines the sanctity of the system of reservation
but also strikes at the root of fairness in public administration.
14. The appellant has sought to rely upon the
instructions issued by the General Administration Department in
the year 2011 and subsequent reiterations, which provide that
even if revenue records reflect Koeri (Kushwaha), a caste
certificate of Dangi may be issued on the basis of local enquiry.
However, as rightly appreciated by the learned Single Judge,
and as independently found by this Court, such instructions
cannot be read in a manner so as to permit a person to adopt
shifting stands at different points of time. The purpose of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1001 of 2023 dt.22-04-2026
10/14
said instructions is to address genuine cases where identification
of caste requires verification beyond documentary entries, and
not to override consistent documentary evidence or to legitimize
contradictory declarations made by an individual in official
records.
15. This Court further finds that the Caste Scrutiny
Committee has taken into account all relevant materials,
including the revenue records, the appellant’s own declarations,
and the enquiry report submitted by the competent authority,
and has thereafter arrived at a categorical finding that the
appellant belongs to Koeri (Kushwaha) caste. Therefore, the
plea taken by the appellant that the State Election Commission
cannot adjudicate the issue relating to caste in view of the
observations made by Full Bench decision rendered in case of
Rajini Kumari (supra) is misconceived, because here the State
Election Commission has not determined the caste of the
appellant, rather it has forwarded the matter before the
competent Caste Scrutiny Committee.
16. In R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala
reported in (2004) 2 SCC 105, it has been held that a person
who secures benefits on the basis of a false or doubtful caste
claim cannot be permitted to retain such benefits. The relevant
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1001 of 2023 dt.22-04-2026
11/14
part of the said order reads as follows:
15. This apart, the appellant obtained the
appointment in the service on the basis that he
belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. When it
was found by the Scrutiny Committee that he did not
belong to the Scheduled Caste community, then the
very basis of his appointment was taken away. His
appointment was no appointment in the eye of the
law. He cannot claim a right to the post as he had
usurped the post meant for a reserved candidate by
playing a fraud and producing a false caste
certificate. Unless the appellant can lay a claim to
the post on the basis of his appointment he cannot
claim the constitutional guarantee given under
Article 311 of the Constitution. As he had obtained
the appointment on the basis of a false caste
certificate he cannot be considered to be a person
who holds a post within the meaning of Article 311 of
the Constitution of India. Finding recorded by the
Scrutiny Committee that the appellant got the
appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate
has become final. The position, therefore, is that the
appellant has usurped the post which should have
gone to a member of the Scheduled Castes. In view
of the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee
and upheld up to this Court, he has disqualified
himself to hold the post. The appointment was void
from its inception. It cannot be said that the said void
appointment would enable the appellant to claim
that he was holding a civil post within the meaning
of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. As the
appellant had obtained the appointment by playing a
fraud, he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his
own fraud in entering the service and claim that he
was holder of the post entitled to be dealt with in
terms of Article 311 of the Constitution of India or
the Rules framed thereunder. Where an appointment
in a service has been acquired by practising fraud or
deceit, such an appointment is no appointment in
law, in service and in such a situation Article 311 of
the Constitution is not attracted at all.
16. In Ishwar Dayal Sah v. State of Bihar [1987 Lab
IC 390 : 1987 BBCJ 48 (Pat)] the Division Bench of
the Patna High Court examined the point as to
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1001 of 2023 dt.22-04-2026
12/14
whether a person who obtained the appointment on
the basis of a false caste certificate was entitled to
the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution. In
the said case the employee had obtained
appointment by producing a caste certificate that he
belonged to a Scheduled Caste community which
later on was found to be false. His appointment was
cancelled. It was contended by the employee that the
cancellation of his appointment amounted to removal
from service within the meaning of Article 311 of the
Constitution and was therefore void. It was
contended that he could not be terminated from
service without holding departmental inquiry as
provided under the Rules. Dealing with the above
contention, the High Court held that if the very
appointment to the civil post is vitiated by fraud,
forgery or crime or illegality, it would necessarily
follow that no constitutional rights under Article 311
of the Constitution can possibly flow. It was held:
(Lab IC pp. 394-95, para 12)
If the very appointment to civil post is vitiated by
fraud, forgery or crime or illegality, it would
necessarily follow that no constitutional rights under
Article 311 can possibly flow from such a tainted
force. In such a situation, the question is whether the
person concerned is at all a civil servant of the
Union or the State and if he is not validly so, then the
issue remains outside the purview of Article 311. If
the very entry or the crossing of the threshold into
the arena of the civil service of the State or the
Union is put in issue and the door is barred against
him, the cloak of protection under Article 311 is not
attracted.”
17. Also, the principle that a litigant cannot approbate
and reprobate by taking inconsistent stands, has also been
reiterated in Union of India v. N. Murugesan reported in
(2022) 2 SCC 25, the relevant part of the said order reads as
follows:
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1001 of 2023 dt.22-04-2026
13/14
“Approbate and reprobate
26. These phrases are borrowed from the Scots law.
They would only mean that no party can be allowed
to accept and reject the same thing, and thus one
cannot blow hot and cold. The principle behind the
doctrine of election is inbuilt in the concept of
approbate and reprobate. Once again, it is a
principle of equity coming under the contours of
common law. Therefore, he who knows that if he
objects to an instrument, he will not get the benefit
he wants cannot be allowed to do so while enjoying
the fruits. One cannot take advantage of one part
while rejecting the rest. A person cannot be allowed
to have the benefit of an instrument while
questioning the same. Such a party either has to
affirm or disaffirm the transaction. This principle
has to be applied with more vigour as a common law
principle, if such a party actually enjoys the one part
fully and on near completion of the said enjoyment,
thereafter questions the other part. An element of fair
play is inbuilt in this principle. It is also a species of
estoppel dealing with the conduct of a party. We have
already dealt with the provisions of the Contract Act
concerning the conduct of a party, and his
presumption of knowledge while confirming an offer
through his acceptance unconditionally.”
18. Applying the aforesaid settled principles to the
facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view
that the appellant, having taken inconsistent stand regarding his
caste status, cannot be permitted to derive benefit therefrom.
The claim advanced by the appellant is therefore, wholly
unsustainable in the eyes of law.
19. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is
of the view that the findings recorded by the learned Single
Judge call for no interference.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1001 of 2023 dt.22-04-2026
14/14
20. The present intra court appeal is, accordingly,
dismissed.
21. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
Shailendra Singh, J: I agree.
Sujit/- (Shailendra Singh, J)
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 08.04.2026
Uploading Date 22.04.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…