IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10200 of 2008 JAI NARAYAN RAM, son of late Bangali Chamar, resident of village- Pandaul, Police Station- Moro, District- Darbhanga… Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga 3. The Superintendent of Police, Darbhanga 4. The Sub-divisional Officer, Darbhanga 5. The officer-in-charge, Moro Police Station, District- Darbhanga. ….. Respondents. --- For the petitioner: Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate Mr.Girish Chandra Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, A.C. to A.A.G.I. ----- 3. 30.3.2010 Heard Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ritesh Kumar learned A.C. to A.A.G.I for the State. The petitioner prays to set aside the order dated 2.11.2006 (Annexure-4) by which the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected by the District Establishment Committee. The petitioner claims the said compassionate appointment on the death of Bangali Chamar, who was working as class IV employee of the State Government. It is stated that the petitioner had married the daughter of said Bangali Ram, deceased employee. It is also claimed that the petitioner is adopted son of the deceased employee. After his death, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground - 2 - stating his claim as that of an adopted son, which has been rejected by the aforesaid order holding that there is no provision for appointment on compassionate ground of adopted son. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a circular dated 12.5.2005 issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department in which it is stated that if there has been rejection in any case of appointment on compassionate ground of an adopted son/daughter, the same should be reconsidered. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the admitted position is that the petitioner was the son-in-law of the deceased Government employee and under the provisions of Hindu Law a son-in-law cannot be adopted as a son. It is further submitted that there is no provision in the Circular of the State Government for appointment of a son- in- law on compassionate ground and thus no direction ought to be issued to the authority for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner. It is urged that the authorities have passed the order on the basis of the application filed by the petitioner, but the fact that the petitioner was also a son-in-law - 3 - was not brought to their notice. However, learned counsel for the State admits that so far as the writ petition is concerned, the petitioner has stated all the true facts before this Court. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is in agreement with the submissions of learned counsel for the State that a son-in-law cannot be adopted as a son, as the same would lead to a most anomalous situation as marriage between one’s adopted son, who is equal in all respects to a natural son, and a daughter. Such marriage, being impermissible under the Hindu Law, hence, no such adoption is permissible or acceptable and no benefit can be derived on the basis of alleged adoption of him as a son by the deceased employee, Bengali Ram. So far as the question of appointment on compassionate ground of the son-in-law is concerned, it is evident from Circular No.13293 dated 5.10.1991 of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar that only four categories of persons are entitled to appointment on compassionate ground, namely, the widow of the deceased employee, a son, - 4 - an unmarried daughter or a widowed dauther- in- law. That being the position, there can be no direction of this Court to consider the case of appointment of a son-in-law on compassionate ground. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )