IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12455 of 2009 ROHIT KUMAR MANDAL @ CHINTU Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 5/10/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The claim in this writ application relates to compassionate appointment as an adopted son. A supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner today encloses as Annexure-5, where his name figures at Serial No.5. It displays consideration of his case as an adopted son, but declared him ineligible on the ground that the application did not contain necessary documents in support of the claim of adoption. Adoption is a question of fact. The claim for compassionate appointment of an adopted son is regulated by Government guidelines contained in circulars to that effect. This Court finds it difficult to interfere with the impugned order as it states no more than as a matter of fact that the petitioner had not enclosed necessary documents in support of his claim of adoption by the deceased employee. Learned counsel for the State has no objection if this writ application is disposed with a 2 direction that if the petitioner furnishes necessary documents in support of his claim for adoption before the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, the authorities shall reconsider their decision with regard to the claim of the petitioner. No other ground of ineligibility has been stated in the impugned order at Annexure-5 to disqualify the petitioner from such consideration except that noticed above. The writ application is disposed with the observation that any such decision shall be taken by the respondents expeditiously provided the petitioner prefers such representation with necessary enclosures within a maximum period of six weeks from today. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)