AKASH GOEL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri L.C.Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri B.P.Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner claims himself to be the adopted son of Sushila Kumari, who was working as Assistant Teacher in Primary Pathsala, village Bhalaswa Isapur, Block Balaikheri, district Saharanpur, which was under the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Saharanpur, is claiming compassionate appointment on her death, in-harness on 11.03.2004. When the claim of the petitioner for the compassionate appointment has not been considered, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.11620 of 2006, which has been disposed of vide order dated 12.11.2007 asking the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad U.P. at Allahabad to decide the application of the petitioner. In pursuance thereof, the application of the petitioner has been decided by the impugned order dated 23.01.2008 and the same has been rejected. The application has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner's date of birth is 12.03.1981 while the registered adoption deed is executed on 11.09.2000 when the petitioner was nineteen years, five month and twenty days old, while in accordance to Section 10 (4) of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1956") the adoption of a person below the age of fifteen years can be made and thus, in accordance to Section 10 (4) of the Act, 1956, the petitioner was not eligible for the adoption and accordingly, the claim of compassionate appointment has been rejected.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been adopted at the age of two years by Sushila Kumari, which is apparent from the adoption deed and such recital is in the adoption deed itself. To regularise such adoption in accordance to law and to give legal shape, the registered adoption deed has been executed on 11.09.2000 and has been got registered. Therefore, the adoption was made in accordance to provisions of Act, 1956. The said adoption deed has not been held void, illegal, ineffective and inoperation by any of the competent court and, therefore, can not be disputed. Further Section 16 of the Act, 1956 raises presumption that whenever any document is registered under any law for the time being in force is produced before any court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption, the court shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and until it is disproved. In the present case, the said documents has not been disproved by any of the competent authority and, therefore, it stand valid.