Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.- Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Ashutosh Tewari and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25th November 2006 passed by the District Magistrate, Badaun rejecting the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 2. The petitioner is the natural son of Sri Amar Singh. The submission is that in 1989, the petitioner was given in adoption to late Sri Chandra Pal who was a Class IV employee in Tehsil Bisauli District Badaun who died in harness during his service on 12.2.2005. 3. The petitioner contends that he was entitled for compassionate appointment inasmuch as even an adopted son is en­titled to such a benefit in view of the law laid down by this Court. The contention is that the adoption took place in the year 1989 and the deed of adoption was reg­istered on 11th February 2003 much prior to the demise of late Sri Chandra Pal. It is therefore contended that it was during his life time that the deed was registered and therefore there is a legal presumption of adoption keeping in view the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. 4. Learned Counsel submits that the direction issued by this Court on 2nd August 2006 has not been carried out by the Dis­trict Magistrate in accordance with law and therefore the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 5. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that findings have been recorded after making an adequate enquiry into the status of adoption whereafter the impugned order has been passed and it does not suffer from any infirmity and the claim made by the petitioner cannot be accepted. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, it is true that the adoption is claimed in the year 1989 and the registra­tion of the adoption deed was executed during the life time of the deceased Chandra Pal. However, the petitioner appears to have entered into other transactions which have been taken into account by the respond­ent District Magistrate to disbelieve the claim of the petitioner. One of such transactions is the sale deed dated 5th June 1997 where the sale deed has been executed in favour of the petitioner by Chandra Pal himself and which records the parentage of the pe­titioner as the son of Amar Singh. 7. One of such transactions is the sale deed dated 5th June 1997 where the sale deed has been executed in favour of the petitioner by Chandra Pal himself and which records the parentage of the pe­titioner as the son of Amar Singh. 7. Relying on the said sale deed the District Magistrate has arrived at the con­clusion that if the petitioner had already been taken into adoption then his parent­age would have been mentioned otherwise as indicated in the sale deed. The District Magistrate has further indicated that the registration has been carried out after a long passage of time. 8. In view of the aforesaid findings recorded, this Court is not in a position to disbelieve the aforesaid version contained in the impugned order which may require leading of appropriate evidence in order to establish the adoption of the petitioner. For this the petitioner will have to approach the writ Court to obtain a declaration to that effect. Accordingly the writ petition is con­signed to records with the aforesaid obser­vations.