Adoptive mother’s death can’t be basis for compassionate job

Justice SM Subramaniam before whom the plea moved by one Dinesh came up, said, “The entire affidavit is silent in respect of the relationship between the adoptive mother as well as the petitioner prior to adoption. Even at the time of the adoption deed, the petitioner was aged about 29 years and he has filed this petition at the age of 35 years. The sequences narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition raise a doubt in respect of the genuineness of the adoption.”

“The adoption deed seems to have created for the purpose of securing an employment on basis of compassionate ground. At no such point of time, one can believe a man, who was 29-years-old, was adopted by a woman, who was a divorcee and aged about 54 years. This apart, the said adoption cannot be utilised for the purpose of securing an employment on compassionate ground,” the judge said.

Dinesh had submitted that he was adopted by R Gomathy by way of an adoption deed dated June 1, 2009. The date of adoption was registered before the sub-registrar’s office. The adoptive mother was a divorcee and had no children. The adoptive mother was employed as an assistant in TWAD Board and she died on May 15, 2015. Hence, he sought to be reinstated in her place on compassionate grounds.

However, Justice Subramaniam on holding that the perusal of the entire records raises a doubt that all such efforts are taken only for the purpose of securing employment into government service, said, “Such an attempt can never be encouraged by courts.

Even certain documents created cogently by following the procedures, this court must draw certain factual inference and possibilities for the purpose of granting relief. The relief cannot be granted in a writ petition merely on the ground that the documents filed are clear.”

“This being the principles to be followed, the scheme of compassionate ground, now at the age of 40, cannot be granted to the writ petitioner as he is not only overaged, but the genuineness of the claim itself cannot be trusted upon. Under these circumstances, this court is not inclined to consider the relief as sought for,” Justice Subramaniam added.