Clear evidence of adoption and adherence to customary adoption practices are essential for seeking compassionate appointment.

1. - The tenacity of the petitioners to pursue such a frivolous litigation is remarkable. This joint writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer that the petitioner No. 1 should be given appointment in view of the death of his adoptive father, who according to the petitioners, was serving in the court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate (JD), Sanganer, Jaipur as Record Lifter and died while in service on 14.11.2002. The petitioner No. 2, i.e. the widow of the deceased Government servant, informed the authority by a letter dated 02.12.2002 (Annexure-3) that since she is unable to serve in case appointment is offered to her, therefore, in her place her adoptive son, i.e. the present petitioner No. 1, should be given appointment. The said application has been rejected, therefore, the petitioners have filed this writ petition for getting compassionate appointment.

2. The writ petition is resisted by the respondent and affidavit in reply has also been filed. In the reply, it is pointed out that the so called adoption deed is a bogus one as even though as per the say of the petitioner No. 1, his adoptive father died in the year 2002, the adoption deed is of the year 2004. In view of the absence of any cogent evidence about the so-called adoption, the department has not accepted the prayer of the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the Administrator General has granted certificate regarding adoption, therefore, the adoption should be held to be valid.

4. In this connection, it is required to be noted that the so-called adoptive father of the petitioner No. 1 died in the year 2002. The document of adoption is registered in the year 2004. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are Muslim and there is nothing on record to show that by any customary way the petitioner No. 1 was adopted by the petitioner No. 2 or her late husband.

5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that all throughout in the school record, the name of the natural father of the petitioner No. 1 has been shown as his father and not of his so-called adoptive father and it has not been changed even till today.

6. So far as the question of custom is concerned, it is required to be pleaded and proved before the competent court. If really the petitioner No. 1 was adopted at the time when he was one year of age, then naturally in the school record and other records, his adoptive father's name would have been shown. But as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, such name was never mentioned in any record. Under these circumstances, it is clear that only in order to get compassionate appointment, this theory of adoption has been created by the petitioners and this theory of adoption is, therefore, highly doubtful and in any case, no compassionate appointment can be given on the basis of such plea.

7. Otherwise also, the father of the petitioner died as back as in the year 2002 and this petition has been field in the year 2007. So far as the compassionate appointment is concerned, it is a special type of appointment which is de hors the service rules and unless a specific and clear case is made out, no such appointment can be given.

8. Considering the ovarall facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the respondent has committed any error in rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for compassionate appointment. I, therefore, do not find any substance in this writ petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Notice discharged.Writ Petition Dismissed.

*******