THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 13883 of 2010 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The Department filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 3.3.2010 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, through which the Tribunal allowed the O.A. filed by the 1st respondent- applicant. The 1st respondent claims to be the adopted son of one Anjaiah, who was working as an Attender in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Division No.2, GVC IV, Choppadandi Camp, Karimnagar, the third petitioner herein. The said Anajaiah died on 10.6.2003 while in service. Therefore, the 1st respondent made an application on 15.11.2003 to the District Collector, Karimnagar, the 1st petitioner herein, to consider his case for compassionate appointment. Through proceedings dated 19.7.2004, the District Collector rejected the application of the applicant on the ground that his adoption is not legal. Subsequently, the 1st respondent made another representation on 23.8.2006, which was also rejected. Assailing the same, the 1st respondent filed the aforementioned O.A. before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent has contended that an identical issue has been raised before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 3621 of 2007 and the Tribunal through order dated 3.2.2010 while holding that no registration is required for adoption deed, allowed the said O.A. and in view of the fact that the issue raised in the O.A. filed by him is similar, he is entitled for the very same relief. While opposing the O.A., the authorities filed counter affidavit before the Tribunal stating that according to G.O. Ms. No.612, dated 30.10.1991,an adopted son or daughter of a deceased Government servant may be considered for appointment if the adoption has taken place legally at least five years form the date of demise of the Government servant. They also contended that the adoption deed executed in favour of the applicant is not a legal document. They further contended that the applicant filed O.S. No. 99 of 2030 before the Junior Civil Judge, Jagityal seeking to declare him as the adoptive son of Anajaiah only after the demise of the deceased Government servant and therefore, the applicant is not entitled for compassionate appointment. The Tribunal having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the order passed by it in an earlier O.A., namely, O.A. No. 3621 of 2007, has allowed the O.A. filed by the 1st respondent-applicant through the impugned order and directed the authorities to consider the case of the applicant for providing compassionate appointment. Hence, the present writ petition. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II while reiterating the very same contentions, which were urged before the Tribunal has contended that the issue involved in the present O.A. is different from the one urged in O.A. No. 3621 of 2007 and the Tribunal without taking this fact into consideration has erroneously allowed the O.A. He also contended that the adoption is not legal; that it did not take place seven years prior to the death of the deceased. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. It is relevant to extract Section 11(vi) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) , which reads thus: “ The child to be adopted must be actually given and taken in adoption by the parents or guardian concerned or under their authority with intent to transfer the child from the family of its birth or in the case of an abandoned child or child whose parentage is not known from the place of family, where it has been brought upto the family of its adoption. Provided that the performance of datta homam shall not be essential to the validity of adoption.” In the instant case, the 1st respondent, who claims to be the adopted son of the late Anajaiah filed an application for providing compassionate appointment after the death of the said Anajaih. He has also filed a copy of the adoption deed, which was executed in the year 1996 to prove the same. However, the authorities rejected the claim of the applicant on the ground that the adoption deed is not legal. Section 16 of the Act provides that whenever any document is registered under any law for the time being in force is produced before any Court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption, the Court shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act and until it is disproved. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid provision, an adoption deed even though if it is not registered is valid until it is disproved. Admittedly, the authorities did not file any other evidence to disprove the adoption deed, in the absence of which, the contention of the department that the adoption is not legal is untenable. In so far as the next contention of the department that the adoption did not take place five years prior to the death of the deceased Government servant is concerned, even though the applicant filed the suit for declaring him as the legally adopted son of the deceased Government servant in the year 2003, i.e., after the death of the deceased Government servant, the adoption however, took place on 12.7.1996, i.e., seven years prior to the death of the deceased Government servant. Therefore, this objection also has been rightly negatived by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, having considered all these aspects, has rightly allowed the O.A. Hence, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the Tribunal. The writ petition is mis-conceived and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed ___________________________ Justice B. Chandra Kumar Date: 1.11. 2010 Pnb