Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 613 (PAT)

Satish Prasad Singh v. State Of Bihar

2001-07-20

NARAYAN ROY

body2001
Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. By this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing notification dated 29-11-1998 as contained in Memo No. 1348 (Annexure-1) so far it relates to the petitioner whereby and whereunder prayer of this petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on account of the death of his father in harness, has been rejected. 3. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that prayer of this petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground was rejected only on the ground of circular dated 5-9-1990 saying that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be given to an adopted son. 4. It appears that such circulars were tested by this Court in the case of Kamal Ranjan V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. 1994 Vol II PLJR 536, and this Court set aside the notification aforesaid and held that adopted son is as good as a son under Sec. 11 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1955. This matter, however, again arose for consideration before a Bench of this Court and this Court in the case of Madhusudan Mishra V/s. State of Bihar 1996 Vol. I PLJR 482, reiterated the same view as taken in the case of Kamal Ranjan (supra) and issued direction to the State authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment forthwith. Again this Court in the case of State of Bihar and Ors. V/s. Laltash Kumar 2001 (Vol. III) PLJR 316 held that an adopted son cannot be precluded from getting appointment on compassionate ground. 5. The circulars issued by the State Government from time to time precluding adopted son from getting appointment on compassionate ground, have since been tested by this Court on several occasions the State authorities could not have refused the prayer of this petitioner on the basis of circular No. 12531 dated 5-9-1990 purportedly exclusing the adopted son from getting appointment on compassionate ground. The question as to whether the petitioner was the adopted son of the deceased was not a question before the authorities and the authorities even holding that the petitioner was the adopted son of the deceased, debarred him from getting appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of the aforesaid circular. 6. The question as to whether the petitioner was the adopted son of the deceased was not a question before the authorities and the authorities even holding that the petitioner was the adopted son of the deceased, debarred him from getting appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of the aforesaid circular. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the ratio laid down by this Court as referred to above, this application is allowed and the order impugned as contained in Annexure-1 so far it relates to the petitioner, is quashed. Respondent No. 3 District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Madhubani is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground ignoring the circular as referred to above in the light of the ratio laid down by this Court forthwith and not later than a period of two months from today.