The validity of an adoption deed cannot be contested by a quasi-judicial authority; only a competent civil court can adjudicate on such matters, particularly invoking statutory presumptions favoring validity after 30 years.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.

Prayer

The instant appeal preferred by the C.C.L. under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the judgment/order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.177 of 2023, whereby and whereunder, while allowing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has passed an order with a direction that “the petitioner is directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and with 25 % back wages within 3 months from the date of communication of the judgment.”

Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, which read as under:

3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that one Rameshwar Singh was appointed on the post of Security Guard with the appellant company on 10.11.1973. Rameshwar Singh was issue less and as such the writ petitioner was adopted. The deed of adoption was registered subsequently on 25.01.1985 and the ex-employee of the respondent-CCL, i.e., Rameshwar Singh declared the petitioner as his dependent in his service excerpts also. Sometime in the year 1988, Rameshwar Singh applied for voluntary retirement on account of medical unfitness and as per the provision of the National Coal Wage Agreement, the petitioner was offered employment. The petitioner had taken his Class-X examination in the year 1985 and all formalities for taking the exams were completed before adoption wherein he had declared the name of his biological father.

4. The application for the appointment of the petitioner in terms of NCWA on account of the voluntary retirement of Rameshwar Singh on medical grounds was filed by the petitioner on 03.05.1989 and ultimately the petitioner was granted appointment and by this time the petitioner had attained the age of 18 years. The petitioner passed Class-X examination in the year 1985, Class- XII examination in the year 1987, and passed his Bachelor of Arts in the year 1989. In the year 1993, the petitioner was issued the College Leaving Certificate. As per Class-X certificate, the date of birth of the petitioner is 05.12.1969.

5. The writ petitioner continued to work and on 8/9.06.2016, the petitioner was issued a show cause as contained in Annexure-4 to which the petitioner responded and ultimately charge-sheet dated 1/2.02.2017 as contained in Annexure-5 was issued to the petitioner wherein two allegations were made against the petitioner; (i) the deed of adoption as son by Shri Rameshwar Singh was signed on 25.01.1985 and on that date the petitioner had already crossed the legal age (fifteen years) for valid adoption, which makes the writ petitioner’s adoption void as per Clause 10(iv) of the Adoption Act 1956; (b) The educational certificates obtained by the petitioner in the year 1987, 1989 and 1993 after the adoption bears the name of the biological father of the petitioner, namely, Ram Lakhan Singh.

6. With these allegations, it was alleged that the available records established that the petitioner cheated the company and managed to get employment in CCL through an invalid and pseudo-adoption deed. The petitioner responded to the same vide Annexure-6 dated 09.02.2017 and denied the charges.

7. The show cause reply has been submitted wherein, the reason for maintaining the name of the biological father in the certificates of educational qualification has been given in the show cause reply by stating that the petitioner was registered for appearing in Class-X before the date of adoption and as