P.B. Majmudar, J. - (1.) The tenacity of the petitioners to pursue such a frivolous litigation is remarkable. This joint writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer that the petitioner No. 1 should be given appointment in view of the death of his adoptive father, who according to the petitioners, was serving in the court of additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate (JD), Sanganer, Jaipur as Record lifter and died while in service on 14.11.2002. The petitioner No. 2, i.e. the widow of the deceased Government servant, informed the authority by a letter dated 02.12.2002 (Annexure -3) that since she is unable to serve in case appointment is offered to her, therefore, in her place her adoptive son, i.e. the present petitioner No. 1, should be given appointment. The said application has been rejected, therefore, the petitioners have filed this writ petition for getting compassionate appointment. The writ petition is resisted by the respondent and affidavit in reply has also been filed. In the reply, it is pointed out that the so -called adoption deed is a bogus one as even though as per the say of the petitioner No. 1, his adoptive father died in the year 2002, the adoption deed is of the year 2004. In view of the absence of any cogent evidence about the so -called adoption, the department has not accepted the prayer of the petitioners.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the Administrator General has granted certificate regarding adoption, therefore, the adoption should be held to be valid.
(3.) In this connection, it is required to be noted that the so -called adoptive father of the petitioner No. 1 died in the year 2002. The document of adoption is registered in the year 2004. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are Muslim and there is nothing on record to show that by any customary way the petitioner No. 1 was adopted by the petitioner No. 2 or her late husband.;