2009 (5) TMI 857 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether Grant of a succession certificate by no stretch of imagination, would be a relevant factor for the purpose of determination of the question as to whether the adoption was valid or not? Held that - Appeal allowed. The very fact that the respondent had filed an application for grant of succession certificate along with his father, showing themselves to be the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased, is itself sufficient proof to show that he did not claim any benefit in regard to the debts of the deceased as his adopted son or otherwise.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of adoption claim.
2. Eligibility for compassionate appointment.
3. Breach of principles of natural justice.
4. Legal implications of the succession certificate.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Adoption Claim:
The respondent claimed to be the adopted son of Chittaranjan Singh Sengar, but the application for the succession certificate did not mention this adoption. The court observed that the purported adoption deed was unregistered and did not carry any statutory presumption. The respondent's school records listed his natural father as Ganesh Singh Sengar. The court emphasized that under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proving the adoption was on the respondent, who failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim.

2. Eligibility for Compassionate Appointment:
The respondent applied for a compassionate appointment following the death of Chittaranjan Singh Sengar. The application was initially rejected by the Joint Director of Education but was later granted by the Deputy Director (Education) without proper verification. The court reiterated that compassionate appointments are exceptions to the constitutional scheme of equality under Articles 14 and 16. Such appointments are not a right but a concession meant to provide immediate relief to the dependents of a deceased employee. The Government of Madhya Pradesh's scheme specified that only the widow or legal children of the deceased are eligible for such appointments, excluding nephews.

3. Breach of Principles of Natural Justice:
The respondent argued that the cancellation of his compassionate appointment without a show-cause notice violated the principles of natural justice. The court noted that while natural justice is essential, there are exceptions, particularly in cases involving fraud. The court found that the respondent had committed fraud by obtaining the appointment without disclosing the earlier rejection by the Joint Director. The court cited several precedents to support the view that fraud vitiates all solemn acts and that the principles of natural justice were not required to be complied with in this context.

4. Legal Implications of the Succession Certificate:
The respondent and his father jointly applied for the succession certificate, which was granted. The court clarified that a succession certificate allows the holder to collect the deceased's dues as a trustee for distribution among the legal heirs. It does not confer any right or status upon the holder. The court found that the succession certificate did not prove any relationship between the respondent and the deceased, nor did it validate the adoption claim. The High Court's judgment, which had relied on the succession certificate to grant the compassionate appointment, was deemed erroneous.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, concluding that the respondent failed to prove the adoption, was ineligible for the compassionate appointment, and had committed fraud. The appeal was allowed with costs assessed at Rs. 10,000/-.