Adoption under Hindu law requires compliance with age restrictions; adoption of a person over 15 years is invalid, impacting entitlement to benefits as an Earthquake Affected Person.

JUDGMENT :

(Y.G. Khobragade, J.) :

1. Mr. S.R. Yadav-Lonikar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appears on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 to 4.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With Consent of both sides matter is heard finally at the admission stage.

3. By the present Petition, the Petitioner has put forth prayer clauses C & D as under:

“(C) By issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction in the like nature, the circular dated 31.05.2023 issued by respondent No.2 – Collector and the impugned order dated 06.06.2024 passed by respondent No.3 – Tahsildar, thereby cancelling the Certificate of Earthquake Affected Person dated 30.08.2022 issued in favour of the Petitioner be quashed and set aside;

(D) By issuing a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction in the like nature, respondent No.4 be directed to issue appointment order to the Petitioner as per his selection to the post of Police Constable (Armed) from the Earthquake Affected Persons (open) category.”

4. In short, it is the story of the Petitioner that, he is biological son of Shri Shankar Ramu Pawar and Sau. Gunbai Shankar Pawar, R/o Dudhani, Tq. Akkalkot Distt. Solapur. On 18-04-2022, his biological parents gave him in adoption to Shri Lalu Shivram Jadhav and Sau. Narsabai Lalu Jadhav under the registered adoption deed executed before the Sub-Registrar Nilanga, Dist. Latur. At the time of adoption, he was 10 years old. The adoption ceremony was followed by rituals in vogue and as per provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Since the day of adoption ceremony, he started residing with his adoptive parents, however, due to some quarrel, his adoptive parents denied to recognize his status as an adoptive son. Therefore, he filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 725 of 2022 before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Nilanga against his adoptive parents and prayed for declaration of his status as adopted son. During pendency of Suit, he and his adoptive parents entered into compromise and matter was placed before the National Lok Adalat for settlement of dispute. Since, the dispute was settled, a Compromise Decree was passed as per deed of compromise. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached with Respondent No. 3, Tahsildar for issuance of certificate of Earthquake Affected Person on the basis of Adoption Deed and Compromise Decree passed in RCS 725 of 2022. Accordingly, the Respondent no. 3 issued a certificate certifying that the Petitioner is an adopted son of his adoptive parents, the Earthquake Affected Persons, and he is entitled for reservation under said quota in the Government Service.

5. Mr. K.P. Rogde, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner canvassed that the present Respondent No. 4 has published an Advertisement for filing up of 75 post of Police Constables (Armed) in the State of Maharashtra wherein, one post was reserved for Earthquake Affected Persons Category. Therefore, the Petitioner submitted his candidature through online process. After due scrutiny, the Petitioner was found eligible for the said post. He was called for physical test and written test, in which he succeeded. Thereafter, he was called upon for verification of documents and was selected for the post of Police Constable (Armed). Then, he appeared before J.J. Hospital, Byculla, Mumbai for Medical examination, wherein, he was declared medically fit. However, on 06-06-2024, Respondent No. 3, Tahsildar called upon the Petitioner, his adoptive parents as well as his natural parents for verification of veracity of the Certificate of Earthquake Affected Person issued by the then Tahsildar on 30.08.2022. Respondent No. 3- Tahsildar, after conducting a hearing, revoked/cancelled said certificate, therefore, no appointment order has been issued in his favour. Hence, the Petitioner is under an apprehension that his selection may be cancelled by Respondent No. 4.

6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that, Respondent