1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5317/2006 (Rajendra Prasad Balai (Salwi) vs. The State of Raj. & Ors.) Date of Order :: 06.05.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr.Vinay Jain, for the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By way of filing present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 16th November, 2005 (Annexure-11) whereby the claim of the petitioner for providing appointment on compassionate ground was rejected by the respondent- department on the ground that petitioner was not found eligible for providing compassionate appointment in accordance with the Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996. The case of the is that his father late Shri Mohan Lal left behind his two sons Shankar Lal and Rajendra Prasad (petitioner), two daughters and wife. But Shankar Lal elder son of late Mohan Lal was adopted by Narayan Lal and he is residing separately and is not member of the family of late Mohan Lal. As per petitioner this fact was brought to the notice of the respondents but the claim of the petitioner for providing compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that his elder brother Shankar Lal is already in service whereas Shankar Lal is residing separately with Narayan Lal to whom he has gone on adoption, therefore, rejection of petitioner's candidature on the ground that his brother Shankar Lal is 2 already in service is totally erroneous. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that adoption deed was got registered on 12th January, 2005 but this document was not placed before the respondent for consideration, therefore, an opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to submit all the relevant documents alongwith registered adoption deed for considering his case afresh. As per respondents, no documentary evidence was filed along with application by the petitioner, therefore, the decision taken by the respondents for not providing compassionate appointment is in consonance with the provisions of law. Hence, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. I have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties as well as pleadings of the case and documentary evidence. It is obvious that the day on which the case of petitioner was considered, there was no material on record. The contention of the petitioner that one document which is said to be a note-sheet of Panchas, in which, it is mentioned that in presence of members of the community, Shankar Lal was adopted by Narayan Lal, but this document is not sufficient for the purpose of ascertaining or giving any conclusion that Shankar Lal was adopted by Narayan Lal, therefore, he cannot be treated as family member of Late Shri Mohan Lal. However, learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments has brought to the notice of this Court that the registered adoption deed dated 12th January, 2005 has been executed upon which petitioner is claiming reconsideration by the department. 3 In the interest of justice although decision taken by the respondents was perfectly within the competence and upon the documents furnished by the petitioner, but before passing order dated 16th January, 2005, the adoption deed was registered on 12th January, 2005 and the said deed was not produced before the respondents, therefore, I deem it just and proper to grant liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation to the respondents alongwith certified copy of adoption deed and all other relevant documents. Upon filing the fresh representation, respondents are directed to reconsider the case of petitioner for the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with the Rules of 1996. This exercise may be completed within a period of two months from the date of filing fresh representation. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS),J. A.K. Chouhan/-