IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14832 of 2007 SATYOG KUMAR PREMI @ JITTU, son of late Feku Ram, resident of Kalibari Road, P.S. Mithanpura, District Muzaffarpur … Petitioner Versus 1. BABA SAHEB BHIMRAO AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR 2. The Vice Chancellor, Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur 3. The Registrar, Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur 4. The Principal, Mahanth Darshan Das Women College, Muzaffarpur … Respondents ----------- 2. 13.4.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for Bihar University. The prayer of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been opposed by the counsel for the University by filing a counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that first of all there would be no presumption that the petitioner was the adopted son of the deceased employee, inasmuch as there is no registered Deed of Adoption nor any declaration to this effect was filed by the deceased employee in his life till he was in service of the University. It has also been submitted that even if the story of adoption is accepted, the application filed by the petitioner was clearly barred by limitation, inasmuch as the date of death of the deceased employee 2 was 13.1.1993, whereas the application was filed by the petitioner on 1.10.2001 though such application could have been filed only in the period of five years from the date of death of the deceased employee. Finally, it has been pointed out that the date of birth of the petitioner being 24.1.1979 he was ineligible on the date of death of his alleged adoptive father and therefore, when he did not file an application till 2001 even after becoming major in the year 1997, his case for appointment on compassionate ground has been rightly rejected by the University. Counsel for the petitioner would however submit that the authorities of the University in fact have proceeded on an incorrect presumption that the scheme of compassionate appointment does not provide for appointment of an adopted son altogether. Counsel for the petitioner is correct to that extent that an adopted son is also a son and therefore, his appointment cannot be refused on compassionate ground merely on the ground of his being adopted son. Presently, however, in this case there 3 has been number of other factors on which the appointment of the petitioner was impermissible. His being a minor coupled with the fact of there being absolute absence of any registered Deed of Adoption and to top it all his application being filed after the period of limitation, either individually or collectively were good ground to reject the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. That being so, this Court would not find any merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/