ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The respondent had applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. He claimed that he was the adopted son of a deceased employee Bansrajia Devi who had died on 6.9.1989. Learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition of the respondent. However, in letters patent appeal, the High Court has granted relief to the respondent.

4. The respondent claimed that he was the adopted son on the basis of a deed of adoption dated 28.2.1989. It is said to have been executed seven months before the deceased died. In the impugned judgment, the High Court appears to have proceeded on the basis of a presumption relating to the validity of the adoption deed under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Under Section 16 of the Act, if any document registered under any law for the time being in force is produced before any court purporting to record the 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 unless and until it is disproved. In the present case, the deed of adoption is