IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.180 of 2009 Tasneem Ahmad, S/o Late Ashfaq Hussain, adopted son of Late Shamim Ahmad, resident of Village Satghara, P.S. Rahika, District Madhubani……………………………………………………………….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Collector, Darbhanga. 2. The Deputy Collector, Establishment, Darbhanga. 3. The Block Development Officer, Baheri, Darbhanga……………………………………………………...Respondents ----------- 3 04.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. In this writ application, petitioner has prayed for quashing of an order dated 27.02.2006 as contained in Annexure-1 by which he has been communicated that his case for compassionate appointment cannot be considered as an adopted son of the deceased employee. This order has been passed in the light of Clause (1) (Ga) of circular of the Government contained in Memo No.13293 dated 05.10.1991. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently, this circular has been held ultra vires by this Court. Learned counsel for the State submits that thereafter a fresh circular 2 contained in Memo No.512 dated 12.05.2005 of the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar has been issued in view of the observations of this Court in the case of Kamal Ranjan Vs. The state of Bihar reported in 1994(2) PLJR 536. It has been held that person, who is legally adopted under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, can only maintain the claim for compassionate appointment. He submits that the petitioner being a Muslim, there can be no case of his adoption by the deceased in terms of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956. He submits that under the Mohammedan Law, there is no law of adoption and, therefore, petitioner cannot claim that he is legally adopted son of the deceased to maintain his claim for compassionate appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a dependant of the deceased and, therefore, he has right to be appointed on compassionate ground. Dependant of a deceased employee has no locus standi under the aforesaid Government resolution for appointment on 3 compassionate ground unless legal adoption is established. Since the same is absent in the present case, petitioner is not entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)