IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6840 of 2006 PRADEEP KUMAR YADAV son of late Ram Prasd Yadav, R/o village-Dullipatti, P.S. Jainagar,Distt-Madhubani. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through 2. the Commissioner cum Secretary, 3. Tural Development Department (Grmin Bikas) Main Secretariate, Patna 4. Deputy Development Commissioner 5. cum Chief Executive Officer, 6. Zila Parishad, Madhubani. —Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. Kishore Kumar Thakur For Zila Parishad : Mr. Shabbir Ahmad For the State : Mr. Giridhar Gopal AC to AAG-II ----------- 6. 04.5.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Zila Parishad and the State. The petitioner prays for appointment on compassionate ground due to death of his adoptive father on 13.4.2004 who was working as Road Peon under the Zila Parishad, Madhubani. It is stated that after the death of the said employee on 13.4.2004, a deed of adoption was registered on 30.9.2004 executed by the widow of the deceased employee in which the averment was made that the petitioner was adopted on 15.3 1976 during the life time of the deceased employee. Thereafter on 12.10.2004, the application for appointment on compassionate ground was made. 2 It is the stand of the Zila Parishad that the deed of adoption has been created purposely to secure appointment on compassionate ground. The application for appointment has been filed subsequent to the creation of the said deed after fabricating the story of adoption. For the said reason, the authorities of the Zila Parishad have came to the conclusion that as valid adoption was not made during the life time of the deceased employee, it was not a fit case for forwarding the application to the District Compassionate Appointment Committee. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even the widow of the deceased employee had the authority to execute the deed of adoption. It is further submitted that the Block Agriculture Officer, Jainagar, Madhubani, on direction, conducted enquiry in this regard and vide his letter dated 24.2.2005, reported that the petitioner was said to be the adopted son of the deceased employee on the basis of the statement made by the widow and daughter of the deceased and the local persons. It is stated that the said enquiry was conducted at the instance of the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive 3 Officer, Zila Parishad. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of this court in C.W.J.C.No.13961 of 2001 (Shailesh Kumar V. State of Bihar and others) in which by order dated 8.11.2001 (Annexure-6), the stand of the adopted son to get compassionate appointment has been upheld. From a consideration of the facts of this case, it is evident that the deed of adoption itself has come into existence more than five months after the death of the deceased employee and thereafter, the application for appointment on compassionate ground has been filed. For the said reasons, this Court does not consider the conclusion arrived at by the respondent authorities of the zila Parishad as arbitrary and illegal. So far as the report of the Block Agriculture Officer is concerned, it is the stand of the respondents that it has been tutored. From a perusal of the report this Court also finds that the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad did not call for enquiry about the status of the petitioner as adopted son but to enquire as to under what 4 circumstances, when the widow of the deceased employee was alive, her daughter has been made nominee. Thus, no fault can be found if the authorities have chosen not to rely upon the said report. In fact, the petitioner has not been able to provide any evidence before the authorities or before this Court regarding adoption earlier to the date of death of the deceased employee. No document signed by the said deceased employee regarding the adoption has been produced by the petitioner. So far as the case of Shailesh Kumar (supra) is concerned, it does not support the case of the petitioner as in that matter, the only point decided was that rejection of the application for compassionate appointment on the sole ground that the applicant was adopted son was not permissible in law and the case was directed to be considered in accordance with law as the adopted son under the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act had the same rights as a natural born son and the said provisions of a Parliamentary legislation could not be overridden by the issuance of executive instructions. In the present case, the very factum of adoption has been disputed by the authorities of the Zila Parishad. 5 In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any scope for interference with the stand of the Zila Parashad authorities that the application of the petitioner was not fit for forwarding before the District Compassionate Appointment Committee for consideration. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. However, it will be open to the petitioner to satisfy the authorities of the Zila Parishad on the basis of any concrete evidence that he was actually adopted by the deceased employee during his life time and the same was not an afterthought for getting appointment on compassionate ground. ahk (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)