Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Anurag Narain, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State counsel and perused the record.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.5.2013 passed by District Inspector of Schools, rejecting the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment under U.P. Dying-in-Harness Rules.

3. Facts in brief of the present case are that on 15.1.1988 the petitioner who was born out of wedlock of Sri Mathura Prasad and Smt. Sarla Devi r/o village Bhajanpurva, District Hardoi. By registered adoption deed dated 21.5.1998, he was adopted by Sri Verma S/o Mulla. Later on, Sri Verma, who was working on Class-IVth post, died on 8.4.2002 during the tenure of his services.

4. Accordingly, petitioner submitted an application for considering his case for compassionate appointment. As the said matter has not been considered, so he approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No. 7464 (SS) of 2007, Amit Kumar v. Director of Education (Madhyamik) and others), allowed by order dated 6.3.2013, on reproduction reads as under :

“Heard Sri Anurag Narain, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for opposite parties.

The controversy engaging attention of this Court in the instant writ petition is no more res integra as the same has been settled by a judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Tarun Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, 2011(10) ADJ 445.

Father of the petitioner, namely, late Sri Verma was employed as ‘MALI’ in Lal Bahadur Shastri Inter College, Hardoi, an institution being recognized under the relevant provisions of U.P.Intermediate Education Act,1921. While in service in the said institution Sri Verma died on 14.4.2002. On his death the petitioner appears to have approached the authorities concerned seeking his appointment on compassionate ground. The matter relating to compassionate appointment was considered by the District Inspector of Schools, Hardoi, who vide his order dated 26.7.2007, contained as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that since he is the adopted son of the deceased employee, as such, he is not entitled to be given compassionate appointment. The reason indicated in the impugned order dated 26.7.2007 is that under the relevant rules the definition of the word ‘son’ would not include “adopted son”.

The aforesaid issue, as stated above, was considered by this Court in the case of Tarun Kumar (supra), wherein it has been categorically held that adopted son is included in the definition of family as defined in the relevant rules.

Learned Standing Counsel could not controvert the aforesaid proposition of law laid down in the case of Tarun Kumar (supra).

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.7.2007 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed.

The writ petition is allowed.

The opposite parties are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment against a suitable post on compassionate ground as per law and in view of observations made above within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the authority concerned.”

5. In pursuance to the said order, the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment has been considered and rejected by order dated 21.5.2013 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Hardoi on the grounds that the registered adoption deed has not been produced by him rather the notrized copy of the certified copy has been filed as well as on the ground that in the transfer certificate of the petitioner issued by Lal Bahadur Shastri Inter College, the name of the petitioner’s father is mentioned as Sri Mathura Prasad Saini r/o Bhajanpurva, Hardoi.

6. Sri Anurag Narain, learned counsel for petitioner while challenging the impugned order passed by O.P. No. 4/District Inspector of Schools, Hardoi submits that so fa