Compassionate appointment requires valid legal adoption under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, and failure to establish such validity disqualifies applicants from entitlement under the relevant rules.

Order :

1. Vide this common order, the aforesaid bunch is being disposed of together as both the facts and the issue involved therein is similar.

2. Illustratively, for the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13241/2021. Petitioner herein, inter-alia, seeks issuance of appropriate writ, order and/or direction commanding the respondents to consider his application for grant of compassionate appointment on the post of LDC owing to death of his father in harness.

3. Petitioner claim to be an adopted son of deceased Shri Madan Lal Prajapat, who served as a Class IV employee at Government Primary School in Sundervas, District Udaipur. Petitioner’s adoptive father passed away in 2016. He applied for compassionate appointment for the post of LDC in accordance with the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 ("Rules of 1996"). However, despite being fully qualified and eligible for appointment under the provisions of the Rules of 1996, petitioner’s application was rejected by respondent No. 3 vide an order dated 10.08.2021 on the ground that the adoption deed was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Hence this petition.

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and perused the case file.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on various judgments, which are as below :-

1. Mohan Singh Bhati Vs. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No.9943/2022), decided on 11.08.2023 ;

2. Ronak Joshi Vs. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No.8556/2020), decided on 02.09.2022;

3. Jay Kumar vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board (Letter Patent Appeal No.866/2005 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6844/2005), decided on 04.08.2015.

6. First and foremost, reference may be had to the pointed stand taken in the reply filed by the respondents. Relevant thereof is reproduced herein below:-

“2. That the averments made in para no.2 of the writ petition are matter of record and same are not admitted. It is denied that petitioner is adopted son of Madan Lal Prajapat as there is no Adoption deed as per Section 10 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and in all the educational documents, the name of biological father has been mentioned, therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be adopted son of late Madan Lal Prajapat.

3. That the averments made in para no.3 of the writ petition are not admitted and same are denied. As stated above, there is no Adoption deed as per Section 10 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and in all the educational documents, the name of biological father has been mentioned, therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be adopted son of late Madan lal Prajapat and thus, he is not entitled for compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1996.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

8. That in reply to para no.8 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of dependent as there is no adoption deed under Section 10 of the Act of 1956 showing that the petitioner is the adopted son of late employee, therefore, his application for compassionate appointment was not considered. As stated above, ‘Dependant’ means a spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter, legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life time and who were wholly dependent on the deceased Government servant at the time of his/her death. Since the petitioner is not legally adopted son of deceased employee, he is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground.”

7. Having gone through the judgments ibid, I am in agreement with the proposition of law laid down therein, however, since the disputed facts are involved in the present petitions, which cannot be resolved through extra ordinary writ jurisdiction and evidence is required to be adduced by the respective parties, I find no grounds to interfere.

8. Reference may, i