1 HARISH KUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal(W) No.757/08) Date of Order :: 23.1.09. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KAPADIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. B.L.Choudhary,for the appellant. 1. This special appeal is directed against order dated 13.11.06 passed by the learned Single Judge , whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant assailing the validity of order dated 3.6.06 passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Board, Rajsamand rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground claiming himself to be dependent of late Shri Leeladhar Paliwal who died while in service of the respondent Board, stands dismissed. 2. The appointment as aforesaid was sought by the appellant claiming himself to be adopted son of late Shri Leeladhar Paliwal, who was employed as Safai Zamadar in the respondent Board . The appellant claims that he was adopted by late Shri Leeladhar Paliwal in the month of March, 1984 as his son and the handing and taking over ceremony was conducted on 1.2.2000. That apart, in support of the claim a adoption deed executed by the widow of late Shri Leeladhar Paliwal was also produced before the authority concerned by the appellant. The application preferred by the appellant seeking appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected by the Commissioner of the respondent Board by order impugned dated 3.6.06 holding that in terms 2 of the provisions of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996, the appellant is not entitled for appointment. 3. After due consideration, the learned Single Judge has found that on the date of the ceremony of handing over and taking over,the appellant was of the age more than 30 years, whereas, as per the provisions of Section 10(iv) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (in short 'the Act of 1956” hereinafter), only a person who has not completed the age of 15 years can be taken in adoption unless there is a custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits the persons who have completed the age of 15 years being taken in adoption. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge opined that the adoption of the petitioner is quite doubtful. The learned Single Judge further observed that in the instant case, it appears that the entire exercise of executing the adoption deed is made only to bring the petitioner within the eligibility criteria for appointment on compassionate ground. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge held that the respondent Board has rightly denied the appointment to the appellant on the compassionate ground. 4. Admittedly, for a valid adoption it is the essential condition that the child to be adopted must be actually given and taken in adoption by the parents or the guardian concerned or under their authority with the intent to transfer the child from family of its birth to the family of 3 adoption. Even according to the appellant, the handing over and taking over ceremony in terms of Section 11 of the Act of 1956 was performed on 1.2.2000 . It is also not in dispute that at the time of handing over and taking over ceremony, the appellant was of the age more than 30 years. The appellant has not been able to prove any custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits persons who have completed the age of 15 years being taken in adoption. Therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the alleged adoption of the appellant does not appear to be valid. 5. Moreover, it is to be noticed that according to the appellant he was taken in adoption in the year 1984, the handing over and taking over ceremony was performed in the year 2000 and the adoption deed was executed by the widow of late Shri Leeladhar Paliwal on 22.11.05 i.e. after the death of his husband. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the stand taken by the appellant does not inspire confidence . As per the provisions of Rule 2(c), only the validly adopted son or unmarried daughter are entitled to claim appointment on compassionate ground. In this view of the matter, the competent authority having found that the appellant is not adopted son of late Shri Leeladhar Paliwal has rightly denied the appointment to him on compassionate ground. 6. That apart, the appointment on compassionate ground being an exception carved out to the relevant recruitment Rules governing the 4 public employment to meet a particular contingency cannot be claimed as a matter of right. There is nothing on record to establish that the appellant was a dependent of the deceased employee late Shri Leeladhar Paliwal. Thus, on totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is not entitled to claim appointment on compassionate ground. 7. In view of the discussion above, in our considered opinion, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error warranting interference by this Court in this intra court appeal. 8. In the result, the appeal fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J. (A.M.KAPADIA),J. Aditya/-