JUDGMENT A.P. Sahi, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing Counsel for the respondent No. 2, respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and Sri P.D. Tripathi for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.9.2005 Annexure 1 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner's appointment on compassionate basis, as a class IV employee, have been terminated, on the ground, that the petitioner has failed to adduce any evidence in respect of her alleged adoption by late Ramkali and as such the appointment has been obtained by playing fraud on the department.
3. The order has been challenged on the ground, that the same has been passed in undue haste by providing only three days time to the petitioner to submit her explanation and as such the respondents were duty bound to provide appropriate opportunity to the petitioner to contest the matter.
4. In support of his submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner further invited attention of this Court to the fact that the petitioner is the wife of late Hari Shanker who died on 7.11.98. It has been further stated that the petitioner was adopted by late Smt. Ramkali after whose death the petitioner claimed appointment on compassionate basis. It is evident that no evidence pertaining to adoption was adduced before the authorities nor any such evidence has been filed before this Court. The petitioner relies on the fact that she stood divorced from her husband and as such she was entirely dependent upon her adoptive mother late Ramkali and was entitled for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules.
5. On the facts and circumstances of the case it is evident that the petitioner has failed to prove any claim with regard to her adoption by adducing any evidence before the authorities or before this Court. Even otherwise the petitioner was a dependent of her husband at the time of death of Ramkali on 17.11.87 and there is no evidence in respect of the claim of her divorce in the year 1985 as suggested and stated in the writ petition. In view of this fact and, the reasoning and the conclusion drawn by the authorities in the impugned order, this Court cannot interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on any of the grounds taken by the petitioner.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances no ground is made out to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly writ petition is dismissed.