IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJ. AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R IN (1) S.B.C.W.NO.4285/2004 Naveen Mathur Vs.State of Raj. & others, (2) S.B.C.W. No.4772/2004, IndraSingh SolankiVs.StateofRaj.& Others, (3) S.B.C.W. No.7648/2004 Bharat Singh Chouhan Vs. R.S.R.T.C., Jaipur, (4) S.B.C.W.NO. 5366/2005 Mohd.Sharif Vs. State of Raj.and another, (5) S.B.C.W. No. 5392/2002, ShankerLal Meghwanshi Vs.RSRTC, & others (6) S.B.C.W. No.1374/2002, Dhirendra Singh State and another , (7) S.B.C.W. No.. 2412/2006, BhuvneshKumarVs.Regional Institute of Education (8) S.B.C.W. No. 518/1999, Nand Bhanwar Singh Vs. State , (9) S.B.C.W. No..1256/1995, Prem Kumar Pareek Vs. State, (10)S.B.C.W. No.4712/1996 Prakash Paliwal Vs. State and others , (11)S.B.C.W. No.. 2567/2000 Puneet Bharat Sharma Vs. State, (12)S.B.C.W. No.3090/2000, Virendra KumarAjmeraVs.R.S.R.T.C.Jaipur & others (13)S.B.C.W. No. 2027/2000, Ghanshyam Saini Vs. State and others , (14)S.B.C.W. No.1404/1999, Smt.BhanwariDeviVs.The State of Raj. (15)S.B.C.W. No. 8222/2005 , Man Singh YadavVs.The Chairman Cum Managing Director , (16)S.B.C.W. No.1422/2005, Nipendra Singh Vs.The Chairman Cum Managing Director (17)S.B.C.W. No.5285/2004 Manoj KumaR Sharma Vs. State of Raj.&others, (18)S.B.C.W. No. 3345/2004, Om Prakash Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan , (19)S.B.C.W. No.. 4098/1999, Smt. Munni Devi Vs. State and others, (20 S.B.C.W. No..112/2000, Vishram Gurjar Vs. State and others , (21)S.B.C.W. No. 673/2001, Narayan Singh Chauhan Vs.State& others, (22 S.B.C.W. No. 3709/2001 , Dinesh Kumar Mathur Vs. State and others (23)S.B.C.W. No. 690/2001 Abdul Gani Khan Vs. State and others , (24)S.B.C.W. No. 9604/02, Mithlesh& another Vs.StateofRaj.& others, (25)S.B.C.W. No. 4072/1999, Mukesh Singh Vs. State, (26)S.B.C.W. No. 4464/1999, Ramesh Chand Vs. State and another , (27)S.B.C.W. No. 2000/2000, Deependra Chamunia vs. State and others, (28)S.B.C.W. No. 4847/2002, MohammadAkram & ant.Vs.State of Raj.&ant. (29)S.B.C.W. No.. 5891/02, Ramesh Chand Vs. State, (30)S.B.C.W. No.1702/04, Jitendra Singh Vs.TheSecretary,Govt.of Rajasthan (31)S.B.C.W. No.7016/05, Satya Narain Vs. State of Rajasthan, (32)S.B.C.W. No. 3837/95 VinodKumarGupta Vs.State of Raj.& others, (33)S.B.C.W. No. 6552/98 Inder Kumar Vs. State and others, (34)S.B.C.W. No. 38/99 Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs. State, (35)S.B.C.W. No.. 949/99 Ramesh Kumar Vs. State and others, (36)S.B.C.W. No.. 2538/2000 Shailendra Kumar Vs. State and others, (37)S.B.C.W. No.. 4581/2000 Vinod Kumar Vs. State and others , (38)S.B.C.W. No. 4560/2002, Shri Rais Khan Vs. State and others, (39)S.B.C.W. No. 7432/02 Nand Kishore Vs. State of Rajasthan, (40)S.B.C.W. No. 9278/02 Chhatu Singh Vs. State and others , (41)S.B.C.W. No. 2549/03 Viaks Shara Vs. State of Raj. (42)S.B.C.W. No.3437/04 Smt.NarmadaDevi&ant Vs. The Director EmploymentService, (43)S.B.C.W. No. 3608/04 Arjuna Singh Vs. J.V.V.N.LTD. and others, (44)S.B.C.W. No. 5874/05 Shyam Singh Shekhawat Vs.State of Raj. & others, (45)S.B.C.W. No.. 6554/05 Rajendra Kumar Vs. R.S.R.T.C. (46)S.B.C.W. No. 8696/05, MAYAK SHARMA VS. STAT OF RAJ & ORS & (47) S.B.C.W. No. 4934/06 KAPIL DEV VS. R.S.R.T.C. DATE OF ORDER;- DECEMBER 2006, P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. GANDHI. Serva Shri S.K.Saxena, Mr. Praveen Jain, Virendra Lodha, Ali Mohd. Khan,Sanjay Pareek, Dr. Y.C.Sharma,N.R.Choudhary,Rakesh Bhargava, M.M. Mehrishi, Sunil Samdariya, R.P.Vijay, Dinesh Yadav,Mahesh Gupta,S.K.Gupta, M.L. Goyal,Rajesh Mootha,Sanjay Tyagi, Rajveer Sharma,R.C.Joshi,S.K.Jain,D.S.Jaduon, Bhanwar Bagdi, Manoj Pareek, J.P.Goyal, D.V.Tholia,Manu Bhargava, Miss Manju Garg, Ganesh Meena,Ranvir Singh, M.F.Baig, Vipul Jaimen, Devendra Raghaw, S.R.Yadav, Sanjay Mehrishi, Vikrant Gupta, B.L.Gupta, H.C. Jain, S.K. Singodiya, R.D.Rastogi, J.M.Saxena, for the petitioners, Serva Shri S.N. Gupta, G.S.Fauzdar, Manish Bhandari, Anil Sharma ,Kapil Mathur,Miss Naina Saraf, M.R. Naredi,Mr. R.P. Singh,J.K. Singhi, Shailash Prakash Sharma, Mr. J.K.Agarwal, for the respondents, Mr. H.V.Nandwana, Dy.Govt. Advocate for the State, All these petitions have been presented seeking direction to the respondents for compassionate appointment being cause of action available under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ('the Rules of 1996'). All these petitions contain similar and common facts and law are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioners are seeking compassionate appointment being dependant on the deceased employee. They were minor at the time of death of the deceased government servant. There are few petitioners who seek compassionate appointment being adopted son of the deceased. The petitioners being minor at the time of death of deceased, could not file applications for seeking appointment being not eligible. On attaining the age of majority, each of them filed application seeking compassionate appointment. In some of the cases, their applications have been rejected considering under the Rules of 1996 and in some of the cases, no orders have been passed by the respondents on their applications. (i) In Writ Petition No.4285/2004 Naveen Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, the employee died on 31.07.1995. The petitioner was born on 08.11.1983. The application for seeking compassionate appointment was filed on 28.11.2001. The application has been rejected on the ground that the mother of the petitioner is in employment. (ii) In Writ Petition No.4772/2004, Indra Singh Solanki Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, the application has been rejected on the same ground that the mother of the petitioner is in employment. (iii) In Writ Petition No.7648/2004 Bharat Singh Chouhan Vs.R.S.R.T.C.,Jaipur,the father of the petitioner died on 19.01.1989. At that time the petitioner was of 4 years age being born on 15.09.1984. The application was filed on 18.10.2002 and has been rejected being not filed within reasonable time. (iv) In Writ Petition No. 5366/2005 Mohd. Sharif Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, the employee died on 17.10.1994 and the petitioner was born on 1.6.1981 . At the time of the death of his father, the petitioner was 13 years of age. On attaining majority,the petitioner filed an application on 16.05.1999, which has been rejected being filed belatedly. (v) In Writ Petition No. 5392/2002, Shanker Lal Meghwanshi Vs. RSRTC,and others the father of the petitioner died on 14.08.1996 . The petitioner was born on 22.06.1982. He filed an application on 29.05.2002 for compassionate appointment. His application was rejected as his father has served only for 180 days. (vi)In Writ Petition No. 1374/2002, Dhirendra Singh Vs. State and others,the employee died on 4.6.1981. At the time of death , the petitioner was 4 years of age. He filed an application for compassionate appointment on 29.1.1998 which was rejected being filed belatedly. (vii)In Writ Petition No. 2412/2006, Bhuvnesh Kumar Vs. Regional Institute of Education and another, the petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment being adopted son of the deceased who died on 7.4.1994. He was adopted on 5.3.1994 and at the time of adoption, he was 20 years of age. (viii)In Writ Petition No. 518/1999,Nand Bhanwar Singh Vs.State of Rajasthan and Others,the employee died on 10.02.1991. The petitioner was adopted on 23.04.1991. The petitioner was 13 years of age. The application was filed in the year 1996. The application was rejected on the ground that he was not dependant as being adopted after the death of the deceased employee. (ix)In Writ Petition No.1256/1995, Prem Kumar Pareek Vs. State, the widow of the deceased has adopted his younger brother as his son. The deceased employee died on 15.06.1975 and the petitioner was adopted on 17.8.1992. (x) In Writ Petition No.4712/1996 Prakash Paliwal Vs. State and others ,the employee died on 19.04.1995 . The petitioner was adopted on 4.2.1995 at the age of 23 years. His application was rejected being filed belatedly. (xi)In Writ Petition No. 2567/2000 Puneet Bharat Sharma Vs. State, the deceased employee died on 14.11.1993. The petitioner was born on 7.8.1983 . The application was filed on 4.10.1999 which is still pending. (xii) In Writ Petition No.3090/2000, Virendra Kumar Ajmera Vs. R.S.R.T.C.and another, the employee died on 07.08.1988. The petitioner was born in the year 1976 and at the time of death of his father,he was of 12 years age. He filed an application on 6.5.1995 for the post of Lower Division Clerk. The petitioner has been engaged as Conductor on daily wages basis. He being possessed the eligibility qualification for the post of L.D.C. seeks his compassionate appointment as L.D.C. (xiii) In Writ Petition No. 2027/2000, Ghanshyam Saini Vs. State and others ,the employee died on 06.02.1996. The petitioner was born on 19.09.1978. He filed an application on 5.6.1996 which has been rejected on the ground that his both brothers are in service. (xiv)In Writ Petition No. 1404/1999, Smt. Bhanwari Devi Vs. The State of Rajasthan , the employee died on 6.6.1997. The petitioner was born on 10.1.1981. The application was filed on 14.07.1997 which was rejected on 20.11.1997 vide Ex. 10 as the petitioner was only 16 years and 10 months. (xv)In Writ Petition No. 8222/2005,Ram Singh Yadav Vs. The Chairman Cum Managing Director,R.S.R.T.C., the deceased employee died on 8.8.1991. The petitioner was born on 15.8.1983. He filed an application on 15.8.2001. The respondents have rejected application being filed belatedly. (xvi) In Writ Petition No. 1422/2005, Nipendra Singh Vs. The Chairman Cum Managing Director,R.S.R.T.C., the application of the petitioner has been rejected on the same ground being filed belatedly. (xvii) In Writ Petition No. 5285/2004 Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, the deceased employee died on 8.8.1994. The petitioner was born on 12.8.1976. The application was filed on 7.1.1998 which was rejected on the ground that the post is not vacant. (xviii)In Writ Petition No. 3345/2004,Om Prakash Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan ,the employee died on 16.09.1983. The petitioner was born on 3.7.1983. He filed an application on 21.07.2001 which was rejected being filed belatedly. (xix) In Writ Petition No. 4098/1999, Smt. Munni Devi Vs. State and others, the deceased employee died on 5.7.1996. The widow of the deceased filed an application on 23.07.1996 while the applicant was minor. On attaining the age of majority, the petitioner filed an application which was rejected on 26.10.1998 being not filed within 45 days in terms of the rules of 1996. (xx) In Writ Petition No.112/2000, Vishram Gurjar Vs. State and others , the deceased employee died on 24.08.1996. The petitioner was born on 5.7.1979. The mother of the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 26.09.1996. The application was rejected as it will be considered after the post is available. The petitioner applied again. Her application was rejected being filed belatedly. (xxi) In Writ Petition No. 673/2001, Narayan Singh Chauhan Vs. State and others, the deceased employee died on 7.12.1985. At the time of death, the petitioner was 4 years of age. He filed an application on 19.4.2000 which has been rejected on the ground that it has been filed belatedly. (xxii) In Writ Petition NO. 3709/2001 , Dinesh Kumar Mathur Vs. State and others , the employee died on 19.04.1989. The petitioner was born in the year 1981. He filed an application for compassionate appointment on 15.6.1998 which is still pending. (xxiii) In Writ Petition No. 690/2001 Abdul Gani Khan Vs. State and others , the deceased employee died on 3.8.1975. At that time, petitioner was 12 years of age. An application for compassionate appointment was filed on 6.8.1975 and in the year 1984 also on attaining the age of majority. His application was rejected on 24.4.2000 on the ground that his one brother is in employment. (xxiv) In Writ Petition No. 9604/04, Mithlesh and another Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, the husband of the petitioner Ashok Singh died on 26.9.1993. His dependent son was born on 14.7.1981. He filed an application on attaining majority. His application has not been decided. (xxv) In Writ Petition No. 4072/1999, Mukesh Singh Vs. State, father of the petitioner died on 26.2.1980 . At that time, petitioner was 19 years of age. He filed two applications for compassionate appointment on 30.12.1997 and 10.3.1997, which were rejected on 4.2.1998 on account of amendment of New Rules and being belatedly filed. (xxvi) In Writ Petition No. 4464/1999, Ramesh Chand Vs. State and another , father of the petitioner died on 5.3.1996. At that time petitioner was 18 years of age. He filed an application for compassionate appointment on 11.3.1996, which was rejected on the ground of delay and the petitioner was not qualified for the post. (xxvii) In Writ Petition No. 2000/2000, Deependra Chamunia Vs. State and others, employee died on 3.12.1996. At that time the petitioner was 17 years of age. He moved an application on 12.1.1998. His application was dismissed on 13.4.1999 on the ground that his mother is already in employment. (xxviii)In Writ Petition No. 4847/2002, Mohammad Akram and another Vs. State of Rajasthan and another , deceased employee passed away on 6.9.96 leaving behind his son who was 14 years of age. His son moved an application for compassionate appointment on 12.11.01, which was rejected on 23.3.02 on account of delay in filing the application. (xx ix) In Writ Petition No. 5891/02, Ramesh Chand Vs. State, father of the petitioner died on 11.6.96. At that time the petitioner was 17 years of age. He filed an application for compassionate appointment on 13.9.1998, which was rejected on 12.10.1998 on the ground that it was filed beyond limitation. (xxx) In Writ Petition No. 1702/04, Jitendra Singh Vs. The Secretary, Govt. of Rajasthan , father of the petitioner passed away on 19.1.1985, leaving behind two sons who were 15 and 18 years of the age. Appointment was denied on the ground that one member is already in Government service. (xxxi) In Writ Petition No. 7016/05, Satya Narain Vs. State of Rajasthan and another,the employee died on 27.3.1972. The petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment on 16.7.04, which was rejected on 30.11.2004, on the ground that his date of birth was wrongly mentioned. (xxxii) In Writ Petition No. 3837/95 Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs.State of Rajasthan and others, father of the petitioner died on 26.6.92 leaving behind his 16 years adopted son, who moved an application for compassionate appointment on 24.9.1992, which was dismissed on 18.10.1993, on the ground that the applicant was not real son. (xxxiii)In Writ Petition No. 6552/98 Inder Kumar Vs. State and others, the father of the petitioner died on 15.7.1982, leaving behind his seven years old son, who moved an application for compassionate appointment on 6.10.1993, which was rejected on 6.9.1996, on the ground that he was not eligible for appointment as per Govt. Order No. 1(3) Finance/Exp./3/92/ dated 20.9.1995. (xxxiv) In Writ Petition No. 38/99 Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs. State, , father of the petitioner died on 25.9.1980, leaving behind his two months son, who applied for compassionate appointment on 10.9.1998 on attaining the age of majority. His application was rejected on 2.11.1998, being not applied within 45 days after the death of deceased employee. (xxxv) In Writ Petition No. 949/99 Ramesh Kumar Vs. State and others, the deceased employee died on 23.11.1992, leaving behind him 12 years old son, who applied for compassionate appointment in the year 1997 , on attaining majority , which was rejected on 1.6.1998 the ground of belatedly filed. (xxxvi) In Writ Petition No. 2538/2000 Shailendra Kumar Vs. State and others, the employee died on 7.3.1996, leaving behind his wife and 15 years old son. His wife applied for compassionate appointment on 23.3.1996 which was rejected on 18.9.1998 on the ground of expiry of limitation period. (xxxvii)In Writ Petition No. 4581/2000 Vinod Kumar Vs. State and others , the father of the petitioner died on 22.11.1995. The age of the petitioner at that time was 15 years. He applied for compassionate appointment on 17.9.1996. His application was rejected on 8.9.1998 on the ground of being belatedly filed and his elder brother is already employed in the department. (xxxviii) In Writ Petition No. 4560/2002, Shri Rais Khan Vs. State and others, the father of the petitioner died on 31.12.1981. At that time the petitioner was minor. An application for compassionate appointment was filed on 2.1.1997, after sixteen years and was rejected. (xxxix) In Writ Petition No.5575/02 Bheem Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, the employee passed away on 8.10.1992, leaving behind his son of the age of nine and half years,who applied for compassionate appointment after attaining the age of majority. His application was rejected on the ground that it was filed after expiry of time. (lx) In Writ Petition No. 7432/02 Nand Kishore Vs. State of Rajasthan, death of the employee took place on 15.8.1993. His son aged 19 years, who was adopted on 6.9.1993, after the death of the employee, moved an application for compassionate appointment , which was rejected on 6.4.1998 being not valid according to the order dated 21.9.1997. (lxi) In Writ Petition No. 9278/02 Chhotu Singh Vs. State and others, father of the petitioner died on 31.12.1995. At that time the petitioner was 15 years of age. He moved an application for compassionate appointment on 16.3.1996. which was rejected on 15.6.1998 on the ground that it was not applied within 45 days . (lxii) In Writ Petition No. 2549/03 Vikas Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan, father of the petitioner died on 6.2.1982. At that time age of the petitioner was 12 years. He applied for compassionate appointment in the year 1993. He joined his duties on 29.1.1994 vide order dated 5.10.1996 on the post of L.D.C. On 23.9.2002 by filing an application, he made a request for higher post. (lxiii) In Writ Petition No. 3437/04 Smt. Narbada Devi and another Vs. The Director Employment Service Rajasthan, the father of the petitioner was absconding since 1983. At that time the age of petitioner was three years. The petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment on 22.10.2002. His application was rejected by the respondents being filed belatedly. (lxiv). In Writ Petition No. 3608/04 Arjun Singh Vs. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others, the employee died on 24.6.82. Petitioner is the adopted son of the deceased being adopted on 15.3.1982 He filed application on 27.7.1998. The respondents have stated that the deceased was of 23 years of age at the time of death and was unmarriedand Adoption deed has not been placed on record of the Writ Petitoin. He has not placed copy of the adoption deed either with his application or the notice of demand. This petition being misconceived is dismissed. (lxv) In Writ Petition No. 5874/05 Shyam Singh Shekhawat Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, the father of the petitioner passed away on 2.1.1990. At that time, age of the petitioner was 19 years. The petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment on 24.6.1991. He was given appointment on the post of Patwari against the leave vacancy vide order dated 10.4.1990. He made a representation to the respondents to give him the post of Nayab Tehsildar. His representation was rejected on the ground that he has been rightly appointed to the post of Patwari as per his qualification. (lxvi) In Writ Petition No.6554/05 Rajendra Kumar Vs. R.S.R.T.C., the father of the petitioner passed away on 14.12.1994. At that time the age of petitioner was 9 years. He moved an application for compassionate appointment on 15.7.04. His application was rejected on 7.2.2005 on the ground that it was filed belatedly . (lxvii) In Writ Petition No. 8696/05,Mayank Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan, father of the petitioner died on 3.10.1991. At that time the petitioner was of 13 years of age. He filed an application for compassionate appointment on 12.3.1996. Vide letter dated 13.3.1997, he was asked to fill up the forms for Character Verification and medical examination, for consideration of his application for appointment on the post of L.D.C. His application was rejected on 27.5.03 on the ground that he is not eligible to get appointment under the Rules of 1996. (lxviii) In Writ Petition No. 4934/06, Kapil Dev Vs. R.S.R.T.C. , father of the petitioner died on 20.7.86. At that time petitioner was of four years of age. An application for compassionate appointment was moved by her mother on 16.12.1988 which was rejected on 26.11.05. Again she filed an application on 3.6.2000 for the job of her son, which was rejected as per the Rules of 1996. All other connected petitions where facts are not mentioned contain similar facts and the Law. The respondents have framed the rules in exercise of the powers under Section 309 of the Constitution of India known as the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants dying while in service rules, 1975( for short ` the Rules of 1975'). The rules prescribe recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased. For claiming appointment, rules 5 and 8 of the Rules are relevant, which read as under:- "5. Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased:- In case of deceased Government servants, one member of his family which is not already employed under the Central/State Government or Statutory Board/Organizations/ Corporations owned or controlled by the Central/State Government shall on making an application for the purpose, be given a suitable employment in Government service without delay only against an existing vacancy, which is not within the purview of the State Public Service Commission, in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules, provided such member fulfills the educational qualifications prescribed for the post and is also otherwise qualified for Government service. In the event of non- availability of a vacancy or any of the members of the family being unqualified or minor, is not found suitable or eligible for immediate employment, then such cases should be considered immediately on the availability of the post or any one of them becomes qualified or eligible for such employment under these Rules." 8. Relaxation for age and other requirement:-(1) The candidates seeking appointment under these rule must not be less than 16 years at the time of appointment. In the cases in which the wife of the deceased Government servant being the only candidate found qualified eligible for such employment there shall be no maximum upper age limit. (2) The procedural requirement for selection, such as written test, typing test or interview by a Selection Committee or any other Authority shall be dispensed with, but it shall be open to the Appointing Authority to interview the candidate in order to satisfy that the candidate will be able to maintain the minimum standards of work and efficiency expected on the post or to prescribe any condition, if considered necessary, for acquiring any training or proficiency erg. typing speed or any other qualifications etc. within a reasonable period, after such employment under these rules. Rule 5 was amended subsequently. However, amendment for the purpose of these petitions is not relevant. The age of the candidates seeking appointment is 16 years as per Rule 8 of the Rules of 1975. The petitions filed by the petitioners contained the grievances of rejection of their applications, which are as under:- (1) mother of the petitioner is in employment; (2) application has not been filed within time; (3) deceased served only for 186 days ; (4) petitioner was adopted after the death; (5) adoption is against Section 6 read with Section 5 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956( for short the Act of 1956); (6) engaged as daily wager instead of regular appointment (7) brother of the petitioner is already in service. (8) applied for appointment after a period of over ten years. (9) post is not vacant. (10)application has been filed beyond 45 days. (11)application will be considered when the post is available; (12)in some cases the applications are still pending; (13)appointed against leave vacancy; (14)appointed as daily wager and not as a regular employees; (15)appointed on Lower Post. Should be appointed on higher post, being possessed of higher qualification. So far as the petitioners, who are claiming compassionate appointment on the ground of adoption, their adoption deed has been questioned by the respondents. The requisites of a valid adoption is contained in Sections 5 and 10 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,1956 which read as under:- 5. Adoptions to be regulated by this Chapter.-(1) No adoption shall be made after the commencement of this Act by or to a Hindu except in accordance with the provisions contained in this Chapter, and any adoption made in contravention of the said provisions shall be void. (2)An adoption which is void shall neither create any right in the adoptive family in favour of any person which he or she could not have acquired except by reason of the adoption, nor destroy the rights of any person in the family of his or her birth. 10. Persons who may