IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11349 of 2007 Birendra Kumar Singh, son of Laxmi Singh, Resident of Village Baligaon, P.S. Jagdishpur (Ayer), District Bhojpur, Bihar. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director (Primary Education) Cum-Special Secretary, Patna, Bihar. 4. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Bhojpur, Ara. ---------- Respondents ----------- 2 7.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The story of king Bruce and the spider could not have been more nearer as in the present case. King Bruce had made nine attempts and ultimately succeeded and probably the petitioner may also has a hope to succeed in future, inasmuch as, it is only his sixth attempt before the court of law. The petitioner claims to be the adopted son of late Laxmi Singh, a primary school teacher who is said to have died in harness on 19.2.1994. Laxmi Singh was an unmarried person and it is the case of the petitioner that he had adopted the petitioner as an adopted son. The petitioner, in fact, had filed his application for appointment on compassionate ground on 12.9.1995 by relying 2 on a judgment and decree in Title Suit No. 134 of 1995, wherein and whereunder, he was said to have been declared as an adopted son. Let it be noted that the said Title Suit No. 134 of 1995 was filed on 24.5.1995, admittedly on 16.6.1995 and was also disposed of on 18.8.1995 by way of admission of the defendants accepting the fact of adoption of the petitioner. Let it be also noted that the defendants were non-else but, the own natural father and uncle of the petitioner. Such claim of appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground was however rejected by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee in the meeting held on 19.12.1995. The petitioner, thereafter, had filed a writ application, CWJC No. 7042 of 1996 wherein this fact was not brought to the notice of this Court that his application had already been rejected on 19.12.1995 and, as such, in absence of such an information before this Court, the writ application, CWJC No. 7042 of 1996 was disposed of by an order dated 14.5.1997 with a direction to the Director of Primary 3 Education to examine the claim of the petitioner within an specified period. Thereafter, an order dated 5.9.1997 was passed by the Director, Primary Education holding the petitioner ineligible for appointment on compassionate ground by relying the Government policy and the decision taken by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee. The order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground dated 5.9.1997 was sought to be assailed by the petitioner by filing another writ application, CWJC No. 3508 of 1998 and that writ application was disposed of by an order dated 19.7.1999 directing the Director, Primary Education to re-consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground as also placing the case of the petitioner before the District Compassionate Appointment Committee. In compliance of the said order, when an order was passed again rejecting the case of the petitioner on compassionate ground, the petitioner moved this Court in yet another 4 writ application, CWJC No. 722 of 2002. This Court, having noticed the stand of the State that the alleged adoption through a decree of the civil court was collusive and that the petitioner’s story of adoption was highly doubtful, inasmuch as, he was said to have been adopted at the age of 21 years, had refused to interfere with the order and had disposed of the writ application with the following observation:- “Taking into consideration that there is a serious dispute about the factum of adoption and the same cannot be decided without giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and further without recording a finding of facts that the petitioner was taken in adoption and whether the adoption was valid or not, I refuse to interfere in the matter. The petitioner, if advised, may file a Civil Suit against the State Govt. or his employer and may establish his claim that he is adoptive son of Laxmi Singh and under the policy of the State Govt. he is entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. As the matter relates to appointment on compassionate ground, it is hereby further observed that if such a suit is filed then the learned trying Judge would try to finally decide the Suit within a period of 18 months from the date of appearance of the 5 defendant.” The petitioner did file the civil suit and also impleaded the State and its officials but, then, the relief claimed therein was absolutely different to one which was directed by this Court in the order dated 16.7.2004. The relief sought for by the petitioner in the suit filed by him, Title Suit No. 658 of 2004 reads as follows:- ^^1- ;g rtcht fd;k tk; fd eueqnbZ dks rRrd iq= Lo y{eh flag dk fcnoku lctt&1 vkjk us fgUnq ,sDV ds dkuwu ds varxZr tk;t ?kksf"kr fd;k gSA 2- ;g fd thu&thu nhxj nknjlh eu eqnbZ ikus dks eqLrgd gks fnyok;k tk;A 3- ;g fd [kpkZ eksdnek gktk eqnbZ dks eqnkys ls fnyok;k tk;A** The said suit as per the decree on contest was dismissed. The petitioner, thereafter, is said to have filed a representation to the District Magistrate, Bhojpur for reconsideration of his case again for appointment on compassionate ground and when the same was not done, the petitioner has filed this writ application for the following relief:- “I. Issuance of a writ/writs/order /orders in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground 6 in the light of the several Judgments as the adopted son is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. II. Issuance of a writ/writs/order /orders in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of the director (Primary Education)- cum- Special Secretary Patna dated 5-9-1997.” Counsel for the State would submit that there would be no question of quashing the order dated 5.9.1997, inasmuch as, the said order has already been quashed by this Court in CWJC No. 3508 of 1998 by order dated 19.7.1999. Counsel for the State seems to be correct, inasmuch as, in the operative portion, this Court in the order dated 19.7.1999 had held as follows:- “For the reasons aforesaid, I set aside the impugned order dated 5.9.97 communicated vide order dated 16.9.97 (Annexure-9) and remit the matter to the Director, Primary Education for re- consideration of case of the petitioner for appointment on Compassionate Committee, within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” That would leave the only other relief prayed in this writ application to be adjudicated. Such relief prayed in this writ 7 application in fact was also sought for by the petitioner in CWJC No. 722 of 2002 and this Court had refused to give such relief on the ground that the factum of adoption was a seriously disputed question of fact for which the petitioner was required to file a fresh civil suit seeking declaration of his claim of being adopted son of Laxmi Singh and also entitled under the policy of the State Government to be appointed on compassionate ground. Once this Court would find that the relief exactly sought for by the petitioner in the earlier writ application CWJC No. 722 of 2002 was denied to him in view of the order dated 16.7.2004, there would be no question of again going into the same aspect, specially when the petitioner had also not sought the appropriate relief before Civil Court as observed in the order dated 16.7.2004. The petitioner, in fact, did not seek a declaration with regard to the validity of his adoption rather his only relief sought for in Title Suit No. 58 of 2004 was that it 8 should be declared that the earlier decree passed in Civil Suit No. 134 of 1995 was valid and in accordance with law. This Court had never asked the petitioner to get such a declaration and, in fact, having noted the serious nature of infirmity in the alleged adoption of the petitioner, it had given liberty to the petitioner to file a civil suit by impleading the State and its officials, wherein, he had to seek declaration about his adoption. The decree of earlier civil suit, in fact, was already there before this Court even in the earlier round of litigation when the writ application of the petitioner, CWJC No. 722 of 2002 was disposed of. This Court however did not give credence to the aforesaid decree of the civil suit passed in Title Suit No. 134 of 1995 and rightly so because as noted above, the suit was filed on 24.5.1995 and was disposed of on 18.8.1995 by way of compromise or admission by the defendants under Order 15 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The position, therefore, remains the same even as on date, inasmuch as, the factum 9 of adoption of the petitioner is in serious doubt. On the basis of such adoption, this Court even earlier had not found the petitioner entitled for relief of his appointment on compassionate ground and again this Court will have no other option but to come to the same conclusion. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)