IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14356 of 2008 BALESHWAR RAI Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 03. 09/11/2009 Few facts are not disputed that petitioner Baleshwar Rai came to be appointed as a commission vendor by the Railways way back on 6.4.1982. Petitioner had shown his father’s name as late Teka Rai. In support of the said submission or statement , annexure-1 has been brought on record. Now by virtue of annexure -8 dated 23.8.2008 he stands disengaged by the respondents on the ground that there is variance in the name of the petitioner’s father from the record and the actual name. Annexure-8 came to be passed after due scrutiny when Railway Board laid down a policy for absorbing such commission vendors in the service of the railways on a permanent basis. Submission of the learned counsel for the petioner is that right from the beginning he had made declaration that his father’s name was Teka Rai and there was no dispute about such name. Petitioner claims himself to be the adopted son of Teka Rai and in support of the said adoption he has annexed annexure-3 which is an affidavit by one Bhagwatiya Devi as well as the affidavit sworn before the Executive Magistrate by the petitioner himself. The contention of the petitioner is that the allegation is only a ploy to defeat the claim of the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent Railway have taken a categorical stand that the explanation set up by the petitioner with regard to the - 2 - name of his father is totally misplaced because admittedly in the Bihar School Examination Board certificate issued in the year 1972 the name of the father of the petitioner is Shyam Bihari Rai whereas his date of birth is 22.11.1953. Now by virtue of annexures 3 and 7 he is claiming that he has been adopted by late Teka Rai. The stand of the respondent is that Hindu Law of Adoption does not envisage any adoption in the manner in which the petitioner claims to have been adopted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no answer to the modality or the manner in which his adoption has been effected. He only submits that there is some evidence to show adoption. The stand of the respondents on the question of variance of name is not misplaced because scrutiny has to be done with regard to set of employees in question for giving them permanent status in the light of the Railway Board’s resolution after proper verification of the records. Merely because the petitioner has carried on in the capacity as commission vendor for many a years does not alter the factual position that the so-called adoption is not in consonance with law of the land. The writ application is misplaced. It is dismissed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)