Strict proof of adoption and fraud exception to natural justice justified cancellation of compassionate appointment.

Compassionate appointment required strict proof of the claimed adoption, and the respondent failed to establish a valid adoptive relationship because no registered adoption deed was produced and the surrounding records did not support the plea. The Court held that, absent proof of adoption, he had no entitlement to appointment on that basis. Where the appointment had been procured by suppression of material facts, the Department was entitled to cancel it; fraud vitiates the act, and prior notice or audi alteram partem did not save the appointment. The writ court's interference was therefore unsustainable, and the cancellation was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent had established that he was the adopted son of the deceased so as to qualify for compassionate appointment; (ii) Whether cancellation of the appointment could be invalidated for want of prior notice when the appointment had been obtained by fraud.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent had established that he was the adopted son of the deceased so as to qualify for compassionate appointment.

Analysis: The claim of adoption was required to be proved strictly, particularly because compassionate appointment is an exception to the equality norm governing public employment. A registered adoption deed was not produced, so no statutory presumption under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 arose. The respondent therefore had to prove the adoption by reliable evidence. Under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the special knowledge of the fact lay on him, yet the surrounding records, including the succession certificate application and school documents, indicated that his father was shown as Ganesh Singh Sengar and did not support the plea of adoption.

Conclusion: The respondent failed to prove a valid adoption, and he was not entitled to compassionate appointment on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether cancellation of the appointment could be invalidated for want of prior notice when the appointment had been obtained by fraud.

Analysis: The earlier rejection of the respondent's claim had not been challenged, and the later offer of appointment was procured by suppression of material facts before a lower authority. Once the appointment was shown to have been obtained by fraud, the Department was entitled to cancel it. In such a situation, the rule of audi alteram partem did not assist the respondent, because fraud vitiates solemn acts and the requirement of prior notice does not survive where the material facts admit of only one legal result.

Conclusion: The cancellation was valid and could not be set aside for breach of natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The writ court's interference was unsustainable, and the order cancelling the compassionate appointment was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A compassionate appointment obtained by suppressing material facts and without proof of the foundational relationship can be cancelled without prior notice, because fraud vitiates the act and defeats any claim to natural justice.

---