RABINDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-appellant, whose father died in the year 1999, is seeking compassionate appointment. The writ petition has been dismissed by the learned. Single Judge after relying upon two judgments State of U.P. vs. Paras Nath, 1998 2 SCC 412 and Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 2000 7 SCC 192 after noticing the reason for framing of the policy of compassionate appointment providing appointment to the eligible person and giving preference to the dependent of a person dying in-harness. It has been observed by the learned Single Judge that such appointment cannot be made available after lapse of much time. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that it is none of the fault of the appellant as the appellant within five years to the death of his father applied for the compassionate appointment by making appropriate application but he was directed to obtain succession certificate, because of the reason that the petitioner claimed that he is the adopted son. The petitioner immediately approached the civil court for getting such succession certificate and after getting the same he applied for the post which he has been denied on the ground that he being adopted son cannot be given appointment, in view of the provisions contained in the Rules. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that such Rule is absolutely ultra vires as well as it has been amended in the State of Bihar. It is submitted that adopted son has all right of a son and this right is fully recognized by statutory provision in Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.

(2.) So far petitioner's prayer for compassionate appointment due to the death of the father in the year 1999 is concerned, this ground also cannot be justified because of the plain and simple reason that compassionate appointment is not a regular appointment but it is an appointment to meet with the immediate need of the family which may occur due to the unfortunate death of the employee. This issue has been considered in the above two decisions and we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for interference. Hence, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed, leaving open the question raised by the appellant with respect to the right of adopted son.