<p>The Dharwad bench of the High Court has observed that an adopted son would have to be treated equally with natural son while considering an application for compassionate appointment.</p>.<p>A division bench headed by Justice Suraj Govindaraj has directed the authorities to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner for compassionate appointment within a period of 12 weeks.</p>.<p>The petitioner was adopted in 2011 after the natural-born son died in an accident in November 2010. The petitioner submitted a representation for compassionate appointment after the adoptive father, who was working as a Class-IV employee in the office of Assistant Public Prosecutor, JMFC at Banahatti in Bagalakote district, died in 2018. The deceased government employee has left behind his wife, an adopted son and a daughter, who is differently abled.</p>.<p>The representation was rejected by the Director of Prosecution and the Assistant Public Prosecutor, JMFC court (Banahatti) on the ground that he is the adopted son and the Karnataka Civil Service (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 do not provide for consideration of adopted sons for compassionate appointment. The petition challenging the rejection was dismissed on June 24, 2021.</p>.<p>The division bench noted that on April 9, 2021 itself the state government had amended the rules, doing away with the artificial distinction, and this was not brought to the notice of the single judge.</p>.<p>“In the present case, the daughter being a natural daughter would have been entitled to a compassionate appointment if not for her being mentally retarded as also physically handicapped. In such a situation, it is the adopted son, who was so adopted by the deceased to take care of the family on account of the death of a natural-born son, who has applied for a compassionate appointment,” the bench said.</p>.<p>The court further said, “The distinction made between the adopted son and a natural son by respondent Nos.2 and 4 either on the basis of the existing Rules in our considered opinion would not have any impact or role to play in the matter, a son is a son or a daughter is a daughter, adopted or otherwise, if such a distinction is accepted then there would be no purpose served by adoption. Be that as it may, apparently taking into account that the same would violate Article 14 of the Constitution, the said Rules have been amended so as to do away with the artificial distinction.”</p>
<p>The Dharwad bench of the High Court has observed that an adopted son would have to be treated equally with natural son while considering an application for compassionate appointment.</p>.<p>A division bench headed by Justice Suraj Govindaraj has directed the authorities to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner for compassionate appointment within a period of 12 weeks.</p>.<p>The petitioner was adopted in 2011 after the natural-born son died in an accident in November 2010. The petitioner submitted a representation for compassionate appointment after the adoptive father, who was working as a Class-IV employee in the office of Assistant Public Prosecutor, JMFC at Banahatti in Bagalakote district, died in 2018. The deceased government employee has left behind his wife, an adopted son and a daughter, who is differently abled.</p>.<p>The representation was rejected by the Director of Prosecution and the Assistant Public Prosecutor, JMFC court (Banahatti) on the ground that he is the adopted son and the Karnataka Civil Service (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 do not provide for consideration of adopted sons for compassionate appointment. The petition challenging the rejection was dismissed on June 24, 2021.</p>.<p>The division bench noted that on April 9, 2021 itself the state government had amended the rules, doing away with the artificial distinction, and this was not brought to the notice of the single judge.</p>.<p>“In the present case, the daughter being a natural daughter would have been entitled to a compassionate appointment if not for her being mentally retarded as also physically handicapped. In such a situation, it is the adopted son, who was so adopted by the deceased to take care of the family on account of the death of a natural-born son, who has applied for a compassionate appointment,” the bench said.</p>.<p>The court further said, “The distinction made between the adopted son and a natural son by respondent Nos.2 and 4 either on the basis of the existing Rules in our considered opinion would not have any impact or role to play in the matter, a son is a son or a daughter is a daughter, adopted or otherwise, if such a distinction is accepted then there would be no purpose served by adoption. Be that as it may, apparently taking into account that the same would violate Article 14 of the Constitution, the said Rules have been amended so as to do away with the artificial distinction.”</p>