WP(C) 2191/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P.K. MUSAHARY Heard Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department and Mr. H. Barman, lear ned Govt. Counsel appearing for the State. The petitioner claims himself to be an adopted son of one late Alauddin Khan who died in harness on 30.01.1997 while working as assistant teacher in Tarinipur M .E. School in Cachar District. The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground against the vacan t post due to death of his father. No document has been furnished as to when he made the application and if such application was filed when the same was forwar ded by the authority to the Government for consideration. Besides this no docume nt has been filed to support the claim that he is an adopted son of the deceased government servant. It appears from the minutes of the meeting of the State lev el committee for selection of candidates for appointment on compassionate ground held on 11.08.2010 under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary to the Govt. of As sam, that the petitioner’s prayer for compassionate appointment was turned down as he is a son in law of the deceased government servant. The petitioner asserts that he is the adopted son of the deceased government ser vant in support of which he has submitted a photocopy of the affidavit concerned by the wife of the deceased (Annexure-D). Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned stand ing counsel, Education Department, it has been revealed that the petitioner’s ca se was placed before the appropriate committee and his case was rejected on the aforesaid ground. Even if it is accepted that the petitioner is an adopted son o f the deceased government servant, the petitioner has failed to produce any docu ment of adoption. In my considered view there should be a registered deed of adoption for claiming benefits left after the death of the adopting father. The other ground which sh ould be considered seriously is the delay in approaching the writ court. The lea rned counsel for the petitioner tried to persuade this court that there was no d elay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court inasmuch as there was only 8 cases for consideration before the selection committee and only the p etitioner’s case was rejected. This submission is not sustainable in view of the several decisions rendered by the Apex Court which have been referred to in a r ecent judgment reported in (2010) 4 GLT 340 (F. Nessa and others Vs. State of A ssam and others) wherein it has been held that as per the revised guidelines da ted 2.3.2009, the application for compassionate appointment is to be submitted w ithin 3 months from the death of the government employee. In the said case dire ction was issued to strictly adhere to the guidelines laid down in the case of A .R Das Vs. State of Assam reported in (2006) 4 GLT 674. Having considered the present case in the light of the aforesaid cases, I am of the considered view that the present petition is liable to be dismissed not o nly on the ground of delay but also on the ground that the petitioner has not be en able to satisfy the Court that he is the adopted son of the deceased governme nt servant. Accordingly this petition stands dismissed. No costs.