IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11012 of 2005 MD.SADIQUE HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3. 28.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 13.7.2005 issued under memo no. 504 dated 13.7.2005 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Madhepura by which the application of the petitioner dated 10.1.2005 for compassionate appointment has been summarily rejected. The petitioner claims to be the adopted son of Late Syed Quasim Hussain who was a regular employee of the Judgeship at Madhepura and was posted as Steno-Typist there and died on 27.9.1995 while in service leaving behind his widow Fiza Begum. The petitioner claims that he was adopted by the late employee and his wife Fiza Begum in the year 1975 since they had no issue. He being the natural son of the sister of the deceased employee, since the said adoption claims to be their adopted son maintained by late Syed Quasim Hussain and after the death of the deceased employee he has been looking after his widow. Based on the same the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 20.5.1996. Since no order was passed on the said application, he moved this Court by filing CWJC No. 226/2000 which was disposed of on 18.5.2000 with a direction to decide the claim of the petitioner within three months. Subsequently by letter dated 13.7.2005 the petitioner was informed that his application for compassionate appointment has been rejected. - 2 - Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned letter does not contain any reason and thus is bad in law. He further submitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain his stand and thus the order has been passed in violation of the principle of natural justice. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents stand has been taken that no evidence in support of the adoption has been produced by the petitioner except an affidavit sworn by the widow of Late Syed Quasim Hussain wherein she has stated that her husband had adopted the petitioner as his son in the year 1975. The counter affidavit has also adverted to the certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board on 24.8.1988 and the certificate issued by Civil Defence Training Centre, Muzaffarpur regarding the training taken by the petitioner in 1991, in both of which the petitioner has been recorded as the son of Gulam Rabbani who is his natural father and not that of Late Syed Quasim Hussain. Lastly it is claimed that the Muhammadan Law does not recognize adoption as a mode of filiation and thus no right can be claimed by the petitioner as an adopted son of the deceased employee. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ application. Both the certificates which are subsequent to the claim of adoption in the year 1975 having been produced by the petitioner himself go to show that as back as in 1988 till 1991 the petitioner was, in the records of the school and other authorities, shown as the - 3 - son of Gulam Rabbani and not of the deceased. Moreover, there being no provision for adoption in the Muhammadan Law no claim for compassionate appointment on the basis of being adopted son can be raised by the petitioner. There is thus no merit in the writ application and it is accordingly dismissed. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)