The main legal point established in the judgment is that the adoption made prior to the issuance of the G.O. are to be treated as valid even without registration, and the violation of principles of natural justice in the termination of service.

1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to quash the order dated 26. 1999 giving direction given by the first respondent to the second respondent to terminate the petitioner from service.

2. While admitting the Original Application, the Tribunal granted interim stay on 20.7.1999 and the same was ordered to continue until further orders and by virtue of the interim stay, the petitioner is continuing in service as on date.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he is the adopted son of one K. Sakkarai who was a bachelor . The said Sakkarai was employed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in Government Higher Secondary School, M.M.D.A. Colony, Arumbakkam, Chennai, and he died on 11. 1982 while in service. The petitioner was given on adoption at the age of seven by his natural father under the Hindu Customs and Rites and the adoption took place on 16. 1976. To prove the said adoption, the petitioners natural father K. Ranganathan and the petitioners sister Rajambal gave sworn affidavit before the XV Metropolitan Magistrate on 17. 1992. Two witnesses who attended the adoption ceremony have also given sworn affidavit on 13. 1991. For paying the terminal benefits, to consider the claim of the petitioner as a adopted son, the first respondent sought for legal opinion from the City Government Pleader and based on the legal opinion given, the Director of School Education has permitted to pay the family pension, DCRG to the petitioner by Government letter dated18. 1987. The Collectors Office, Chennai, issued a certificate on 20.7.1982 and issued a Legal Heir Certificate in favour of the petitioner stating that the petitioner is the adopted son of late K. Sakkarai and one Ranganathan is the brother of the said Sakkarai and Rajammal is the sister of the said person.

4. The Accountant General, Chennai, in his letter dated 2. 1992 released the terminal benefits of the said K. Sakkarai in favour of the petitioner as an adopted son. The petitioner submitted application for appointment on compassionate ground due to the death of the adopted father. The Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk, recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and thereafter the second respondent through his proceedings dated 10. 1992 appointed the petitioner under Rule 10(a)(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules as Junior Assistant and posted the petitioner at the Office of the Assistant Educational Officer, T. Nagar in the place of one Tmt. Saveriammal, Junior Assistant already transferred. In the said order it is further stated that the Assistant Educational Officer, T. Nagar has to verify the certificates produced by the petitioner before permitting the petitioner to join in his Office. The petitioner joined the in the said Office on 10. 1992 and is continuously serving. By the impugned order dated 26. 1999, the first respondent directed the second respondent to terminate the petitioner from his service on the ground that the petitioner was given appointment contrary to the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.2899 Labour and Employment Department dated 212. 1988.

5. The said order is challenged in O.A.No.3875 of 1999 before the State Administrative Tribunal on the ground that the petitioner having been adopted by the said Teacher namely K.Sakkarai on 16. 1976 and the adopted father having been passed away in the year 1982, the petitioner cannot get a registered adoption deed in terms of the Government Order which was issued in the year 1988. The genuiness of the adoption of the petitioner by the said K.Sakkarai was already gone into by the Government and after accepting the legal opinion given by the City Government Pleader and the petitioner was given terminal benefits as per the order of the first respondent dated 18. 1987, the respondents cannot raise any doubt with regard to the genuiness of the petitioner’s adoption.

6. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the appointment giv