IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. NO.11 OF 2010 KUMAR RAJA VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. WITH C.W.J.C NO. 9643 OF 2008 KUMAR RAJA VERSES THE STATE OF BIHAR ------ 4. 31.03.2010 Both these matters have been heard together and are being disposed by this common order with the consent of the parties. The petitioner in the writ petition and the review application are common. This Court has heard the Counsels for the parties. One Navin Jha came to this Court in CWJC No. 14071 of 2009 claiming compassionate appointment as an adopted son of one Late Subodh Kumar Rai deceased on 21.8.2006 when consideration was denied on the ground that an adopted son was not eligible. This Court directed consideration in accordance with law. The present petitioner also claims to be an adopted son of Late Subodh Kumar Rai and seeks compassionate appointment likewise. Since he was not impleaded as party in CWJC No. 14071 of 2009 he filed Civil Review No. 11 of 2010. Earlier he had filed CWJC No. 9643 of 2008 with regard to his own claim for compassionate appointment when likewise he also did not implead his siblings rival Navin Jha as party respondent. Both the petitioner and his adopted cousin appear to be playing truant and a cat & mouse game with each other in a claim for compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment is a gross exception to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Every appointment on compassionate ground violates Article 14 when it denies consideration to one who is otherwise eligible but does not have the descent privilege which the person claiming compassionate appointment may have. A Division Bench in 2004 (2) PLJR 453 has held that a sibling rivalry was sufficient reason to deny compassionate appointment. In any event of the matter the issue of adoption is a question of fact to be proved in accordance with law. Whether the petitioner is the legitimate adopted son or his sibling Navin Jha, are all disputed questions of fact which cannot be enquired into in this writ application. The respondents are now expected to decide the rival competing claims strictly in accordance with their constitutional obligation and the laws laid down by the Courts with regard to compassionate appointment, more particularly the judgment reported in (2009) 13 SCC 600. The applications are dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)