HIGH COU‘T Ul' JUUILAI UKt bHHATI i§GARH BILA§PUK mwsmw BENcH QQRAM; Hnwnl E sHm n MAVAK r- . ..-.‘....‘! v . HUN BLt §HKI §A I l3H K GNIHGT—i J. WRIT PETiTiGN N6j02 6F 2§G1 PETiTiGNER Dnlral Kumar benqar HU‘JPLC §Un Ul ‘lLat: a n En"! Ck If‘lau*avannan VIIHGIQIIJGII Ulllgll Q g cug Ann I}, Dno ncalucnt Ann-J Cf vm i Lauya, al-nna T1a" uunjgh, D It Lnampa Janlmrmb) S r (Realson otbhnbanesn bmqn Q \J VtRsUS RESPGNEEN l S 1‘ . State of Ch‘nattisarh. g bh UtKal'Sh Verma UV (JOVI AdVOcaIe Tor the \ CO no A § H UDPUI IUCI It§ QRAI nnnFn (PAbSEu UN Ia-a~4uuo‘) The foiiowing oral order or the court was passed bv the Court. if we mav sav so. the Madhva Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Jabaipur, by passing the impugned order has committed an error R m Department of Schooi Education, M 4‘ Dan-u... /r‘ r" \ IVIGlilIQIGyG I\G!FUI \U \3} Z. UH‘ECiOf‘ Dnmin man...“ I uuuv ulauuuuGns, Kalpur (U.G.) 3. Jomt Director. PubH .nstructicna, BHaSpUf UlVlSlOn ml Ir‘ r‘ \ uuaSpUf \v V , 4. Dy. Director! Schoc¥ Education, Janigir ubtt whaWpu - uulljan \C G) nn rnEolzl‘} och 1- I on” naman oullvaamva uuu‘rlSEI IOI’ the §Ehti€mer , W .M apparent on the face of its order. The facts are simpie and straightforward. The petitioner herein on the demise of his adopted father, nameiy! Chitaranjan Singh Sengar. made an appiication to the c respondents to offer him a suitabie empioyment under the compassionate r\\‘ appointment scheme framed by the department. On consideration of his appiication, appointment was offered to the petitioner vide order dated 8- 4-1997. Accordingiv, he reported for duty on 12—4-1997. When the matter SIOOG thus, DV order dated 19-6-199l, his appomtment was Cancelled 0n the .dround that the petitioner faiied to produce vaiidvsuccession certificate. '2. Feeiing aggrieved by the said action of the respondents. the petitioner instituted an appiication i.e. Originai Appiication No. 1909/1997 r { before the Tribunai. The Tribunai vide the impugned order dismissed the Originai Appiication on the ground that the adoption deed is not registered and. therefore, no presumption couid...be drawn that the“ " petitioner is the adopted son of the deceased Chitaranian $indh Sendar. The impugned order itseif wouid disciose that in support of his case. the petitioner has produced not oniv the deed of adoption as Annexure A-t but also Succession Certificate issued by tne competent court or raw as Annexure A-2. it seems to our mind that iearned Tribunat had not appiied its mind to the Succession Certificate issued bv the competent court of iaw. it is neediess to state that the Tribunai has no iurisdiction to question the correctness of Succession Certificate Annexure A-2. The deed of adoption and Certificate of $uccession wouid 'undeniabiv prove that the t i petitioner is the adopted son of the deceased Chitaranjan Singh Sengar who died in harness; ii is nobody’s case that the petitioner being adopted son of the deceased empioyee is not entitied to seek appointment on ~ compassionate ground to a suitabie post. if that is the position, the order passed by the department dated 19-6-i§97, we should say, is ex facie iiiegai and untenabie in iaw. it 3. in the resuit. we aiiow the writ petition, quash the impugned order passed by the Tribunai Tribunai as weii as that of the department dated t9—6—i 997 and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service. We make it ciear that the petitioner is entitied to aii benefits, pecuniary and otherwise, fiowing from the quashing or' the impugned order. The petitioner is aiso entitied to costs quantified at Rs. 3,000/— (Rs. Three thousand oniy) payabie to him within a period of two weeks from today. «w , L7 \He L meid;;s§ce _ Satish £(Xgnihotri “as a r r ‘ * r r Judge r. . Pathak /