THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.3905 OF 2006 DATED 25TH FEBRUARY, 2010 BETWEEN The Principal Secretary to Government, Energy and Forest Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. And Others. … Petitioners And M.A.Aleem … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.3905 OF 2006 ORDER (Per Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The order dated 22.11.2005 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A. No.6104 of 2002 is under challenge. The petitioners herein, being the Officers of the State, assail the direction of the Tribunal to consider the case of the applicant in the O.A., the sole respondent herein, for appointment on compassionate grounds to a suitable post. The O.A. was filed by the respondent herein stating that his adoptive father, by name, M.A.Rahman Khan, a Forest Guard in the service of the State, died in harness on 01.08.1991. He claimed to be unemployed and sought appointment on compassionate grounds. However, the said request was rejected under the Memo dated 19.07.2000 which was impugned in the O.A. The petitioners herein contended before the Tribunal that the respondent was adopted by M.A.Rahman Khan under the Adoption Deed dated 20.01.1987 and accordingly, there was no compliance with the condition stipulated under G.O.Ms.No.612, General Administration (Services.A) Department, dated 30.10.1991, which required a gap of five years between the date of adoption and the date of death of the Government employee. The Tribunal, however, found that though the Adoption Deed was dated 20.01.1987 there was a mention therein that a decision had been taken with regard to the adoption two years prior thereto and accordingly, the requirement of a gap of five years was satisfied. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II drew our attention to the scheme formulated by the State under G.O.Ms.No.612, General Administration (Services.A) Department, dated 30.10.1991, wherein it is stipulated that the adopted son or daughter of the deceased Government servant may be considered for appointment if the adoption has taken place legally at least five years prior to the date of demise of the Government servant. She pointed out that the Adoption Deed relied upon by the respondent is dated 20.01.1987 and that the employee, M.A.Rahman Khan, died on 01.08.1991 and accordingly, the requirement of five years gap as stipulated in the G.O. is not made out. She also relied upon the 7th Class Common Examination Pass Certificate pertaining to the respondent, which discloses that he passed the said examination in the year 1989 but surprisingly the name of the father is shown as ‘Jabbar’ and not as ‘M.A.Rahman Khan’. She asserted that had the adoption taken place as claimed by the respondent, the said certificate would have disclosed the name of the adoptive father. Sri Vinod, learned counsel, representing Sri M.Kondal Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the scheme was formulated for providing compassionate appointment and therefore, this Court should adopt a liberal attitude in the interpretation of the terms thereof. We are however disinclined to accept this submission as the scheme necessarily has to be interpreted and implemented as per the clear language used therein and it is not for this Court to re-write the policy adopted by the Government in this regard. The G.O. makes it clear that there must be a gap of five years between the date of adoption and the date of death of an employee. This condition was obviously introduced to dissuade adoptions being resorted to during the course of any terminal illness of an employee or with the knowledge of impending death, so as to procure compassionate appointment in Government service. In the present case, the adoption deed dated 20.01.1987, being in Urdu language, clearly discloses that the formalities with regard to the adoption were only completed there under. The mere mention of a decision having been taken two years prior thereto does not clothe the adoption, if any, with legality. We are not venturing into the validity of such an adoption, keeping in mind the fact that the parties are governed by Muslim Law, which does not recognize adoption. The fact remains that the requirements under G.O.Ms.No.612 dated 30.10.1991 have not been fulfilled. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled to claim appointment on compassionate grounds in pursuance thereof. The order of the Tribunal is therefore unsustainable on facts and in law and is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is allowed but in the circumstances without costs. ------------------------------------- GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ---------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J. 25TH FEBRUARY, 2010. PGS/VGSR