High Court quashes decision of High Power Committee over caste issue of petitioner

Source: The Hitavada      Date: 28 Feb 2017 14:14:28


Legal correspondent,

Challenging the decision of High Power Committee relying upon the report of Superintendent of Police, Korba and holding that petitioner comes within the caste ‘Bhoriya’ and not as ‘Bhariya’ because in the revenue entries the name of his forefathers is mentioned as ‘Bhoriya’, the single bench of the Madhya Pradesh high court comprising Justice J K Maheshwari has said that “The decision as taken by the High Power Committee is not justified and is hereby quashed. Let High Power Committee may decide the issue afresh, in case petitioner applies for grant of appointment on the basis of this order. With the aforesaid observation the decision of High Power Committee and the consequential order of prosecution is hereby quashed”.


The single bench has heard the petition filed by Gajanand Bhariya challenging the decision of High Power Committee dated on July 17, 2007 relying upon the report of Superintendent of Police, Korba and holding that petitioner comes within the caste ‘Bhoriya’ and not as ‘Bhariya’ because in the revenue entries the name of his forefathers is mentioned as ‘Bhoriya’.
The petitioner challenging the decision of High Power Committee dated on July 17, 2007 relying upon the report of Superintendent of Police, Korba and holding that petitioner comes within the caste ‘Bhoriya’ and not as ‘Bhariya’ because in the revenue entries the name of his forefathers is mentioned as ‘Bhoriya’.


The court said that after hearing counsel for the petitioner as well as Government Advocate, the basis to arrive at a conclusion is the report of Superintendent of Police, Korba which is based on some revenue entries wherein the name of the forefathers was mentioned as “Bhoriya”. The basis of determination without having cogent evidence regarding the birth, caste, system, tradition and other relevant material, the determination by the Caste High Power Committee is not justified.


It is to further observe here that if report of Superintendent of Police, Korba is relied upon it ought to be first supplied to the petitioner to defend the same, thereafter only, the order can be passed but nothing is reflected in the order or in the reply filed by the respondent to rebut the aforesaid fact.


In absence thereto, in my considered opinion, the decision as taken by the High Power Committee is not justified and is hereby quashed. Let High Power Committee may decide the issue afresh, in case petitioner applies for grant of appointment on the basis of this order. With the aforesaid observation the decision of High Power Committee and the consequential order of prosecution is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed off.