Hon'ble VYAS, J.—Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking direction to the respondents for providing compassionate appointment on the ground that he is adopted son of late Shiv Prakash Swami who died while in service on 11.10.2006 working on the post of L.D.C. in the respondent Education Department.

2. The main contention of the petitioner for his claim is that the petitioner was adopted by late Shiv Prakash Swami who was government employee and died on 11.10.2006 during his life-time and, after his death, an application was filed by the petitioner for providing appointment on compassionate ground. Along with the application of the petitioner, affidavit of Smt. Santosh Devi, wife of late Shiv Prakash Swami is also filed in which she accepted that petitioner Pankaj is her adopted son and if appointment is provided to him she has no objection. The application is placed on record as Annex.5 along with other documents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that claim of the petitioner was rejected on 12.7.2007 by the District Education Officer while observing that as per Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act no person can adopt only son of his natural parents and adoption-deed is also not registered, therefore, no appointment can be made on compassionate ground. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the assertion made by the District Education Officer (Secondary), Bikaner with regard to petitioner being the only son of his natural parents is totally unfounded because his natural father Om Prakash and mother Smt. Sanju were having two issues - daughter Kavita and petitioner Pankaj; and, out of two children, late Shiv Prakash Swami took petitioner in adoption as son with consent of his natural parents, therefore, the reason mentioned in the impugned communication dated 12.7.2007 for rejection of the claim of the petitioner is totally unfounded. further, it is submitted that adoption-deed is not required to be necessarily registered because it is permissible under the custom to adopt any person, therefore, the communication dated 12.7.2007 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and, accordingly, order impugned may be quashed because the reason disclosed in communication dated 12.7.2007 is totally unfounded and against law.

5. Per contra, Mr. G.R. Calla, counsel appearing for the department submits that adoption can be made in accordance with provisions of the Act but it emerges from the facts that only to get appointment on compassionate ground, just before 20 days of the death, the adoption-deed was executed and that, too, is in contravention of the Act of 1956, therefore, the District Education Officer (Secondary), Bikaner has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for providing appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the firm opinion that no executive or administrative authority like the District Education Officer can exercise the jurisdiction to adjudicate or to give opinion with regard to legality of the document. The authority can assess the genuineness of the document if it appears to be forged; but, in this case, the District Education Officer (Secondary), Bikaner exceeded his jurisdiction to assess the validity of adoption-deed which is not permissible in law. For this reason alone, the communication dated 12.7.2007 deserves to be quashed.

7. In addition to the above reason, the other reason is also there with regard to assertion made by the said authority to deny appointment. In the impugned communication, it is observed by the District Education Officer (Secondary), Bikaner that the petitioner is only son of his natural parents but this fact is not correct. As per the reply filed by the respondents itself, in which, they accepted that the natural parents of the petitioner are having two issues - daughter Kavita a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document