ORDER Rusia, J:- 1. The present writ appeal is filed under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order dated 3.4.2019 passed by the Writ Court, whereby the Writ Court has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred as writ petitioner) with a direction to consider the application for compassionate appointment as per para – 3 of the Policy dated 21.5.2002. 2. The facts of the case in short are as under:- 2.1. Late Smt. Vimla Bai W/o Chhotelal was serving on the post of Safai Karamchari / Sweeper in the services of Ujjain Municipal Corporation. She died on 25.8.2014 in a road accident while in service. According to the writ petitioner, before the death, Vimla Bai had submitted an affidavit before the Municipal Corporation disclosing the name of Saddham Hasam as her adopted son and requested for entering his name as a nominee in all the service records. On the basis of the aforesaid affidavit , the name of the writ petitioner had been recorded in the service record as the son of Smt. Vimla Bai. After the death of Vimla Bai i.e. 25.8.2014, the writ petitioner has submitted an application seeking a compassionate appointment on 10.10.2014 along with all necessary documents. In the said application, he has mentioned his religion as Islam. 2.2. The writ petitioner has also approached the civil Court by way of an application under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to get a succession certificate. The said application was registered in the II Civil Judge, Class – I, Ujjain as Succession Case No.16/2015. In the said application, the natural daughter of Vimla Bai and Chhotelal, Sunita @ Soni W/o Mehmudal Hasan was impleaded as non-applicant. The marriage of Sunita @ Soni was held with Mehmudal Hasan and the writ petitioner is their second son. Sunita @ Soni in her reply admitted that the petitioner was brought up as a son by late Vimla Bai and she had nominated him in the service record as her son. By order dated 21.9.2015, Civil Court has granted the succession certificate in favour of the writ petitioner to get the gratuity, provident fund, earned leave etc. to the tune of Rs.4,36,579/- along with interest from the Municipal Corporation. By order dated 21.9.2015, Civil Court has granted the succession certificate in favour of the writ petitioner to get the gratuity, provident fund, earned leave etc. to the tune of Rs.4,36,579/- along with interest from the Municipal Corporation. The Municipal Corporation has preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No.1/2017 against the said order before the Additional District Judge, Ujjain. Vide order 28.6.2017, the appeal has been dismissed. 2.3. Vide order dated 16.5.2018, the Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ujjain has rejected the claim of the writ petitioner under Clause – IV of the Policy framed for grant of Compassionate Appointment Policy dated 29.9.2014 on the ground his natural father viz Mehmudal Hasan is already in the serving in the services of Municipal Corporation. 2.4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the writ petitioner approached the Writ Court by filing a writ petition. 2.5. The Municipal Corporation has filed a reply to the writ petition by submitting that the writ petitioner is not a biological son of Vimla Bai. In the cause title, he has written the name of his father Mehmudal Hasan as his father, therefore, he is not entitled to get the compassionate appointment on account of the death of Vimla Bai. It is submitted that the adoption of the petitioner is not valid under the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Even otherwise also the biological father of the writ petitioner is Mehmudal Hasan is already working as an Assistant Revenue Inspector, therefore, under Clause – IV of the Policy, he is not entitled to a compassionate appointment. 3. After considering the aforesaid reply, vide order dated 3.4.2019, the Writ Court has allowed the writ petition on the ground the respondents therein have rejected the representation relying on a policy dated 29.9.2014, therefore, they cannot supplement the reasons which are not in the impugned in order to defend it. The Writ Court has placed reliance on a Policy dated 21.5.2002 which shows that if the wife and husband both are working on the post of Safai Karmchari and if one of them dies, then one of the members of the family is entitled to get a compassionate appointment. Hence, the claim of the writ petitioner is liable to be considered and accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. Hence, the present writ appeal by the Municipal Corporation is before this Court. 4. Hence, the claim of the writ petitioner is liable to be considered and accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. Hence, the present writ appeal by the Municipal Corporation is before this Court. 4. Shri Patwardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants / Corporation submits that Section 10 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 specifically prohibits that no person shall be capable of being taken in adoption, unless 'he or she is a Hindu'. Since the writ petitioner is Muslim by religion, therefore, his adoption by late Vimla Bai is void ab initio . Even otherwise after such adoption, he is still mentioning his religion as Islam, hence, he continues to be the son of his biological father. Therefore, on the basis of such illegal adoption, he cannot claim a compassionate appointment on account of the death of late Vimla Bai. It has further been submitted that the natural father of the writ petitioner is already working as Assistant Revenue Inspector, hence, there is no need to grant compassionate appointment to the writ petitioner out of turn relaxing the normal procedure of recruitment. Hence, the order of the Writ Court is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 / writ petitioner contradicts that the appellants / Corporation have not rejected the claim of the writ petitioner on the ground of illegal adoption of the writ petition. Vide letter dated 8.9.2017, he was called upon to submit succession certificate along with other documents which he had produced, therefore, they cannot be permitted to supplement the additional ground denying the claim of the writ petitioner. learned counsel further submits that the writ petitioner is the second son of the natural daughter of Vimla Bai and even by way of succession, he is entitled to compassionate appointment. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 7. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner is claiming compassionate appointment being an adopted son of Smt. Vimla Bai. Although late Vimla Bai had given an affidavit to the Corporation informing adoption of the writ petitioner and requested for the recording of his as her son in the service records. This information or change of entries in the service records has made the petitioner entitled to get all the terminal dues as nominee of late Vimla Bai. Although late Vimla Bai had given an affidavit to the Corporation informing adoption of the writ petitioner and requested for the recording of his as her son in the service records. This information or change of entries in the service records has made the petitioner entitled to get all the terminal dues as nominee of late Vimla Bai. But the claim of the compassionate appointment is under the policy of the State Government in which nature son or daughter or adopted son / daughter are eligible to claim compassionate appointment not the nominee of the the deceased Government employee. the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is liable to be considered if his adoption is held to be valid in the eye of law. 8. It is correct that the claim of compassionate appointment of the writ petitioner has not been rejected by the appellants, as it is barred under section 10 of Act of 1956 since it is purely a question of law it same can be raised at any stage of legal proceedings. The Corporation has already taken this ground in the return filed in the writ petition that the so called adoption of the petitioner by late Vimla Bai is barred under section 10 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and the said issue has not been decided by the Writ Court.Hence there is no bar for this Division Bench of this High Court to consider this legal issue which was already taken in the Writ Petition by way of the return. 9. Section 10 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 is reproduced below:- “10.Persons who may be adopted- No person shall be capable of being taken in adoption unless the following conditions are fulfilled, namely- (i) he or she is a Hindu; (ii) he or she has not already been adopted; (iii) he or she has not been married, unless there is a custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits persons who are married being taken in adoption; (iv) he or she has not completed the age of fifteen years, unless there is a custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits persons who have completed the age of fifteen years being taken in adoption.” (Emphasis Supplied) It is clear from the aforesaid provision of law that Hindus can adopt only a Hindu. Late Vimla Bai was a Hindu lady and the writ petitioner is Muslim by religion, therefore, he could not have been adopted by late Vimla Bai. 10. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment which based on the adoption is not tenable , hence, the order passed by the Writ Court is liable to be set aside. Even otherwise Clause – 2.5 of the Policy dated 29.9.2014 also provides that if a deceased Government employee is not having any child, then only a legally adopted son is eligible to get a compassionate appointment. In the present case, late Vimla Bai was having his natural daughter i.e. Sunita @ Soni, therefore, under this clause, the writ petitioner is not entitled to claim compassionate appointment. As per the aforesaid clause, only a legally adopted son can claim the compassionate appointment and as held above, the writ petitioner is not a legally adopted son. 11. The appellants / Corporation have filed an additional document which is an award dated 13.12.2019 passed by the Additional Member of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. Since Vimla Bai died in a road accident, therefore, the writ petitioner has filed a Claim Case No.139/2015 to claim compensation. The Tribunal has considered the issue in respect of the validity of adoption and has held that the petitioner is not a legally adopted son of late Vimla bai. As per the evidence came in the MV claim case the late Vimla Bai is survived by four daughters. The Tribunal has also held that the writ petitioner has failed to prove that at the time of adoption, he was below 15 years of age in addition to the fact that he is not Hindu The learned MACT has dismissed the claim case filed by the writ petitioner being adopted son has rejected as he is not a legally adopted son of late Vimla Bai. 12. In view of the above, the order dated 3.4.2019 passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No.14923/2018 is not sustainable and is hereby set aside. The impugned order of rejection passed by the appellants is hereby upheld and the writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that dismissal of the writ petition shall not affect the payment of terminal dues by the Municipal Corporation to the writ petitioner. The writ appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to cost.