1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.136/2005 (Narayan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order :: 22.04.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Dr.P.S. Bhati, for the petitioner. Mrs.R.R. Kanwar, Dy. Govt. Advocate. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order/letter dated 12th October, 2004 (Annexure-15). Further it is prayed that respondents may be directed to provide appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. According to the facts of the case, the father of petitioner late Shri Chandan Snigh died while in service on 11th October, 2001. Late Shri Chandan Singh was working on the post of Cleaner under the control of respondents. The deceased government employee left behind his widow Smt. Usab Kanwar and the son Narayan Sing (petitioner) and both were fully depended upon late Shri Chandan Singh. It is also one of the fact that Sumer Singh elder son of late Shri Chandan Singh was adopted by his real uncle Shri Jor Singh on 28th June, 2001 prior to the death of late Shri Chandan Singh and after adoption Sumer Sinmgh, elder brother of the petitioner was living with Jor Singh as 2 adopted son. After death of late Shri Chandan Singh, petitioner filed an application along with relevant documents for compassionate appointment. The petitioner has placed on record copy of the application filed by him, so also, death certificate. But vide order dated 12th October, 2004 (Annexure-15), the application of the petitioner for providing compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that elder son of late Shri Chandan Singh is in service, therefore, in accordance with Section 5 of the Rules of 1996, petitioner is not entitled for appointment on the ground that so called adoption deed is not registered document. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that according to Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the registration is not necessary. Learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court towards Annexure-3, submits that the said adoption deed was executed by Jor Singh by which Sumer Singh elder son of deceased government employee late Chandan Singh was adopted and signature of both the persons are bearing upon the said adoption deed. The petitioner has placed on record ration card (Annexure-14), in which, name of four persons have been shown i.e. Chandan Singh (deceased govt. employee), Usab Kanwar, 3 Narayan Singh (petitioner) and Prakash Kanwar but name of Sumer Singh is not mentioned in the ration card and the said ration card was issued on 13th July, 2001 prior to death of late Shri Chandan Singh. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the reason for not providing appointment on compassionate ground is totally arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of law, in view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Hira Lal Vs. State of Raj. & Anr., reported in 2004 (5) WLC (Raj.) 169 in which it has been held that an adoption is endorsed and signed by both the persons taking and giving child in adoption, the court is required to presume that adoption has taken place in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The relevant paras 3 and 4 reads as follows:- “3. A perusal of the above provision clearly shows that it provides for a rule of evidence by raising a rebutable presumption and nothing more. In case, an adoption is endorsed by a registered-deed signed by both the persons taking and giving child in adoption, the court is required to presume that adoption has taken place in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In that event, burden to prove otherwise rests on the person who challenges does not exist any presumption in favour of adoption and this fact is required to be proved like any other fact, where-ever such question arises. But it does not provide registration of adoption deed as a condition of valid adoption as has been assumed by the Divisional Commissioner while passing the impugned order. 4 4. It is apparent that the authority passing the order has totally misdirected itself in law by raising a presumption that in the absence of a registered document, the adoption is not valid. This mistake is apparent on the fact of the order, which goes to the root of the matter.” Upon perusal of the aforementioned judgment rendered by the Division Bench, it is obvious that adoption deed does not require registration, therefore, I am of the opinion that reason for denial of appointment to the petitioner on the ground that adoption deed was not registered is not tenable, so also, the fact that an affidavit (Annexure-12) has been filed by Sumer Singh in which he has accepted that his uncle Shri Jor Singh adopted him and he is adopted son of Shri Jor Singh. Meaning thereby Sumer Singh himself accepted the adoption and he has relinquished his all rights accrued in favour of him as a son of his natural father. In this view of the matter, the reason for denial of appointment does not survive. Hence, the order dated 12th October, 2004 (Annexure-15) deserves to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 12th October, 2004 (Annexure-15) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for providing appointment on compassionate ground while accepting the fact that Sumer Singh elder son of late Shri Chandan Singh deceased 5 government employee has gone on adoption, therefore, Sumer Singh is son of Jor Singh, so also, if petitioner found eligible for providing appointment on compassionate ground, then he shall be provided appointment within a period of one month from the date of submitting certified copy of this order. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS),J. A.K. Chouhan/-