High CourtsSingle Bench

Vishnu Datt @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 6 April 2018 · Citation: (2018) 04 RAJ CK 0142

HON’BLE JUDGES
DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 12188 of 2017
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

47 paragraphs · 988 words
1.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:

“ (I) By appropriate writ order or direction, the impugned letter / order dated 20.06.2017 issued by the respondents may kindly be declared illegal

and be quashed and set aside.

(2) By appropriate writ, order or direction, therespondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and

consequently respondents may be directed to give the appointment to the petitioner on the respective post.

(3) Any other order or direction, which this Hon’bleCourt deemed just and proper be passed in favour of the petitioner.â€​

2.

Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the petitioner was adopted by Shri Durga Prasad, who was the Beldar in the Irrigation

Department at the Office of Assistant Engineer, Water resources Sub-Division, Burji No.195 Anoopgarh District Sri Ganganagar. The petitioner’s

father late Shri Durga Prasad took the adoption of the petitioner, which is reflected in the ration card issued to the family on 20.11.2005, which is

Annexure-1 of the writ petition. The name of late Shri Durga Prasad is also mentioned in the category of father’s name in the mark-sheet of

classes 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 12th which are Annexure-2 to Annexure-7 of the writ petition.

3.

The transfer certificate, and the bonafide residence certificate issued by the Tehsildar and Aadhar Card issued by the competent authority are on

record as Annexure 8, 9 and 10 respectively, and all such documents carry the petitioner’s father name as Durga Prasad. However, the

customary adoption was converted into a registered adoption deed on 20.04.2015 by the mother of the petitioner vide Annexure-11. The father of the

petitioner that is Shri Late Shri Durga Prasad expired, while in service, on 17.03.2015 prior to the adoption deed being registered.

4.

The application for compassionate appointment was made but the same has been rejected by the respondents by passing a cryptic order, in which it

was stated that as per the Rule 2 (x)Â of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996, it

was imperative upon the deceased employee to have done the adoption during his lifetime. The order also mentions a circular dated 26.08.2006,

wherein the person concerned would not be entitled for compassionate appointment, if the information of succession is not rendered by the employee

concerned during his life time.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri NR Budania has pointed out that the death of the petitioners’ father had happened in the year 2015

whereas the documents from Annexure-3 to Annexure-10 are relatable to the period prior to the death of Shri Durga Prasad, except the documents of

Transfer Certificate, Residence Certificate and Aadhar Card, which is Annexures 8, 9 and 10 of the writ petition.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has however pointed out that the Board Certificate of 10th class, which is supposed to be a very authentic

document for any students undergoing the Board Examination, has been issued on 06.06.2014 by the statutory authority of Board of Secondary

Education, Ajmer Rajasthan, which is prior to the death of the petitioner’s father.

7.

Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to refute the aforementioned factual averments. The argument raised by learned counsel for

the respondent Shri DR Kawadia is that the petitioner got the registered adoption deed on 20.04.2015, whereas the death of the father of the petitioner

had happened on 17.03.2015.

8.

Learned counsel for the respondent has not refuted a single document, produced by learned counsel for the petitioner from Annexure 2 to

Annexure 10 of the writ petition, which reflect valid customary adoption prior to the death of the petitioner’s father.

9.

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the valid adoption is reflected in the

documents Annexure 2 to 10 of the writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner’s father name as Shri Durga Prasad has been entered in all these

documents, which include the mark-sheets of classes 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 12th, the transfer certificate, the bonafide residence certificate and

Aadhar Card, and all carry the name of Durga Prasad as father of the petitioner. The petitioner’s father got the ration card made way back in the

year 2015 while showing the petitioner as son of Durga Prasad, and therefore, the customary adoption had apparently happened long back before the

death of Shri Durga Prasad. The adoption was carried out, but the registration of the same has been done only on 24.02.2015.

10.

The petitioner has come out with a clear claim that the adoption was made as per the customary rites, and as per the same, customary adoption is

permissible even when the adoption deed is not registered. The petitioner’s academic record authentically points out that the petitioner was the

adopted child of Late Shri Durga Prasad, and particularly, the mark-sheet issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, Rajasthan on

06.06.2014 which is before the death of the petitioner’s father on 17.03.2015, shows that the adoption had happened prior to the death of the

petitioner’s father. The subsequent registration of the adoption deed is merely ratification of an earlier customary decision taken by the couple for

adopting the petitioner, and the same is beyond reasonable doubt as per the documents on record.

9.

In light of the aforesaid observation, it cannot be said that the petitioner is disqualified under Section 2 (x) of the Rajasthan Compassionate

Appointment of Dependents of deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 for appointment as compassionate ground. Hence, the writ petition is

allowed and the impugned order dated 20.06.2017 is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to give compassionate appointment to the

petitioner as per his own eligibility and suitability, within a period of three months from today.