JUDGMENT : In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the decision dated 03.01.2012 issued vide Memo No. 16(A) by the respondent no. 2 whereby and whereunder, the request for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected. A further prayer has been made by the petitioner for a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of his father late Madhusudan Kumar who died on harness on 15.09.2003 while working as a Messenger in the office of the respondent no. 4. 2. The case of the petitioner is that one Madhusudan Kumar was posted as a Messenger in the office of the Sub-divisional Animal Husbandry Officer, Ghatsila in the district of Singhbhum East where he died on harness on 15.09.2003. The petitioner claims himself to be an adopted son of late Madhusudan Kumar as he was adopted on 10.01.1995 in accordance with the custom and usages prevalent between the parties. In terms of the Circular dated 24.01.2008 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, wherein an adopted son was entitled for being appointed on compassionate ground, the petitioner made an application in the prescribed format on 19.02.2008. The said application was duly forwarded by the respondent no. 4 to the District Animal Husbandry Officer, Singhbhum East on 27.05.2008. Pursuant to the application for compassionate appointment the Deputy Collector (Establishment) Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur vide letter no. 720 dated 25.06.2008 requested the District Animal Husbandry Officer, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur to submit a detailed enquiry report as per circular dated 24.01.2008. The petitioner was communicated by the department to get the adoption deed dated 10th January, 1995 registered and pursuant to such directive the mother of the petitioner had got the deed of adoption registered on 27th January, 2009. A detailed enquiry was conducted and the report was submitted by the respondent no. 4 vide letter No. 41 dated 04.02.2011 wherein it was stated that the petitioner was entitled for compassionate appointment. An opinion was also sought for from the Government Pleader of Jamshedpur who had opined in favour of the petitioner. However, the District Compassionate Appointment Committee in its meeting dated 03.01.2012 rejected the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that the adoption was not in accordance with law. An opinion was also sought for from the Government Pleader of Jamshedpur who had opined in favour of the petitioner. However, the District Compassionate Appointment Committee in its meeting dated 03.01.2012 rejected the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that the adoption was not in accordance with law. Being aggrieved by the decision of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee dated 03.01.2012, the petitioner has preferred the present writ application. 3. Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Abhijit Kumar Singh, learned J. C. to G.P. -V. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was duly adopted by late Madhusudan Kumar on 10th January, 1995 and subsequently the deed of adoption was got registered in terms of the direction issued by the Department. It has been submitted that since the petitioner is the adopted son of late Madhusudan Kumar and the enquiry had also supported the said fact and since an adopted son is entitled to compassionate appointment in view of the circular dated 24.01.2008 the petitioner was eligible to be considered for such appointment. 5. Learned counsel further submits that at the instance of the respondents the deed of adoption got registered and, therefore, it was absolutely illegal and arbitrary on the part of the respondents to reject the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the deed of adoption was prepared after fourteen years from the date when the actual adoption had taken place. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the finding in the impugned minutes of meeting dated 03.01.2012 is contrary to the enquiry report as well as against the opinion which had been given by the Government Pleader and, therefore, the decision of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee taken on 03.01.2012 deserves to be quashed and the respondents be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh. 6. Per contra, Mr. Abhijit Kumar Singh, learned J. C. to G.P. -V, has submitted that the deed of adoption was prepared on 27.01.2009 whereas the application for compassionate appointment was made on 19.02.2008 which is after a considerable delay. 6. Per contra, Mr. Abhijit Kumar Singh, learned J. C. to G.P. -V, has submitted that the deed of adoption was prepared on 27.01.2009 whereas the application for compassionate appointment was made on 19.02.2008 which is after a considerable delay. Learned J. C. to G. P. -V has referred to circular dated 05.02.1999 and has submitted that an adopted son will not be considered to be a dependent and, therefore, the petitioner does not have any inherent right for being appointed on compassionate ground. Learned counsel also submits that late Madhusudan Kumar had never disclosed during his life time that he had adopted the petitioner as his son and the entire episode has been orchestrated by the petitioner in order to illegally secure appointment on compassionate ground. 7. Replying to the aforesaid contention advanced by the leaned J. C. to G. P. -V, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Manoj Tandon has submitted that the grounds which have been mentioned in the counter affidavit is not reflected in the decision of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee dated 03.01.2012. It has also been submitted that the application for compassionate appointment was made by the petitioner within five years as stipulated in the circular issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rjbhasa. It has also been submitted that the circular dated 24.01.2008 includes an adopted son of a Hindu government servant as a dependent and, therefore, the petitioner has been entrusted with a valid legal right for claiming such appointment. 8. The focal point of the dispute is whether the petitioner was legally adopted by late Madhusudan Kumar or the adoption itself is a subsequent document to secure employment of the petitioner. The circular dated 24.01.2008 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa has brought within its ambit an adopted son and unmarried adopted daughter within the precincts of “dependent” subject to the condition that the adoption has been carried out in terms of the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956. The petitioner claims himself to have been adopted by late Madhusudan Kumar on 10.01.1995 and on the death of late Madhusudan Kumar on 15.09.2003 application was made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment on 19.02.2008. The deed of adoption which was produced before the authorities was not registered. The petitioner claims himself to have been adopted by late Madhusudan Kumar on 10.01.1995 and on the death of late Madhusudan Kumar on 15.09.2003 application was made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment on 19.02.2008. The deed of adoption which was produced before the authorities was not registered. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that late Madhusudan Kumar had in the official records mentioned about the petitioner as his son. 9. As per the own saying of the petitioner he was adopted by late Madhusudan Kumar on 10.01.1995 and till making an application for compassionate appointment there is no document to show that the said adoption deed was brought to the knowledge of the authorities. In the writ petition, it has been stated that the adoption was made on the basis of custom and usages but the same has to be proved as Section 3(a) relates to definition of “custom” and “usage” which reads as under:- “3.(a) the expressions “custom” and “usage” signify any rule which, having been continuously and uniformly observed for a long time, has obtained the force of law among Hindus in any local area, tribe, community, group or family: Provided that the rule is certain and not unreasonable or opposed to public policy; and Provided further that in the case of a rule applicable only to a family it has not been discontinued by the family;” 10. Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 deals with presumption as to registered documents relating to adoption and the same reads as under:- “16. Presumption as to registered documents relating to adoption – whenever any document registered under any law for the time being in force is produced before any court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption, the court shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and until it is disproved.” 11. The deed of adoption dated 27.01.2009 which was registered was between Sri Ajay Kumar and Smt. Poonam Devi as the first party and Asha Kunwar wife of late Madhusudan Kumar as the second party. The deed of adoption dated 27.01.2009 which was registered was between Sri Ajay Kumar and Smt. Poonam Devi as the first party and Asha Kunwar wife of late Madhusudan Kumar as the second party. Although a mention has been made in the said deed of adoption that the petitioner was adopted in the year 1995 by late Madhusudan Kumar but the deed of adoption was registered much after the death of late Madhusudan Kumar. In such circumstance, therefore, there apparently hangs a cloud over the actual claim of the petitioner to be the adopted son of late Madhusudan Kumar. As has been reiterated above, nothing has been brought forward by the petitioner in order to show that the subject regarding adoption by late Madhusudan Kumar is borne out from any official records. Whether the petitioner was actually adopted in terms of the customs and usages prevalent in the family cannot be decided by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. Since there is apparent dispute with respect to the fact as to whether the petitioner is the adopted son or not of late Madhusudan Kumar, this Court cannot entertain such application in view of the disputed question of fact. 12. As a cumulative result of the discussion made hereinabove, this writ application fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.