S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. The respondent-writ petitioner, Kumari Abha having successfully competed in Pre-medical and Dental Test, was admitted in the 1st Year M.B.B.S. Course in M.G.M. Medical College, Jamshedpur for the sessions, 1993-92. Subsequently a notice vide letter No. M,C./ 73/94 dated 3rd February, 1994, was issued on her alleging submission of forged S.C. certificate, she being not a S.C. On receipt of reply the "Deputy Secretary, Health Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna vide impugned letter No. 250 (26) dated 18th October, 1996 ordered to cancel her admission.

2. The learned single Judge by impugned judgment dated 15th August, 1997, allowed the writ petition, CWJC No. 3928/ 1996 (R), as was preferred by her.set aside the order dated 18th October, 1996, allowing Kumari Abha to pursue her studies and to appear in all examinations.

3. The appellant-State of Bihar took plea that the deed of her adoption by a Scheduled Caste was not proper being not registered, nor the writ petitioner- Kumari. Abha can be treated as a Scheduled Caste member, having not born in a Scheduled Caste family.

4. Admittedly, writ petitioner-Kumari Abha born in a kurmi family, a member of other Backward Class (O.B.C.). The case of writ petitioner-Kumari Abha was that she was adopted at the age of 5 years by one Late Ramdin Ram, a member of Scheduled Caste (S.C.). After her adoption, since her 5 years of age, she was brought up by her adopted parents. Late Ram Ramdin Ram got her admitted in Schools and Colleges wherein in the records her fathers name has been shown as Ramdin Ram.

5. Before learned single Judge the appellant-respondent State of Bihar took only plea that the deed of adoption being not registered the writ petitioner cannot claim to have been adopted by late Ramdin Ram.

6. The learned single Judge taking into consideration the fact that Kumari Abha was adopted by (Late) Ramdin Ram at the age of 5 years following all the rites and ceremonies, a deed of adoption was executed by the original parent, in the School records and certificates granted by the Bihar School Examination Board and the Intermediate Council (Late) Ramdin Ram has been shown as her father, held that there being strong presumption of adoption and in absence of any contrary provision such as registration under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the adoption cannot be held to be illegal.

Learned single Judge noticed the Supreme Court decision in Devi Prasad v. Triveni Devi, AIR 1970 SC 1286, wherein the Apex Court made similar observation.

7. Learned single Judge also noticed the Supreme Court decision in Banwari Lal v. Trilok Chand, AIR 1980 SC 419, wherein the Apex Court held that if there is evidence to the effect that since childhood she or he is treated as son/daughter of the adopted father, it is a strong presumption of adoption.

8. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand assisted in the Court, the Institute namely, M.G.M. Medical College, Jamshedpur having fallen within the jurisdiction of State of Jharkhand while he accepted that there is no necessity to register a deed of adoption, submitted that even on transplantation by adoption, Kumari Abha is not entitled to claim reservation under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India. He place reliance on Supreme Court decisions in Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 545 and State of Tripura v. Namita Majumdar, reported in (1998) 9 SCC 217.

9. Similar issue fell for consideration before Courts from time to time. In the case of Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commr., Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241, the appellant was daughter of one Lakshman Pati, who was Hindu Koly (forward class). She obtained caste certificate as Mahadeo Koli, a Scheduled Tribe and was admitted into Medical College. When it was found that she belonged to forward class, her admission was cancelled and the writ petition was dismissed. The Supreme