Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1839 (RAJ)

Radhey Mohan v. State of Rajasthan

2001-11-23

HARBANS LAL, SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2001
Honble SHARMA, J.–All the three appeals involve the identical questions of fact and law therefore we propose to decide them by a common order. (2). Radhey Mohan in the writ petition No. 4053/1999 before the Single Bench sought the following reliefs- (a) to declare that being the adopted son of a Scheduled Caste person, he was entitled to benefits available to his father. (b) to promote him as Vice Principal treating him as Scheduled Caste candidate from the date his junior was promoted. Learned Single Judge vide order dated October 8, 1999 dismissed the writ petition with costs of Rs. 5000/-. Being dissatisfied with this order. Radhey Mohan has filed Appeal No. 99/2000. (3). Ashutosh, who is the son of Radhey Mohan also instituted writ petition No. 8080/1997 before the Single Bench seeking quashing of the communications dated December 13, 1996, July 30, 1997 and September 29, 1997 and continuance in the service. Learned Single Judge vide order dated October 16, 1998 allowed the writ petition and directed that Ashutosh was entitled to be continued and deemed to be in the service. Against this order, the State of Rajasthan and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short the RPSC) have filed appeals No. 5/1999 and 9/1999. (4). Brief resume of the facts is that Radhey Mohan was born in a Brahmin family on April 1, 1944. In pursuance to the advertisement issued by the RPSC, Radhey Mohan was initially appointed as Lecturer in Mathematics in Govt. College Karauli on August 7, 1967 as a general category candidate and he stated his fathers name as Tej Singh Vashisth. Subsequently, after regular selection to the post of lecturer, by the RPSC, Radhey was confirmed on the said post on May 13, 1972. An adoption deed thereafter on November 27, 1972 was got registered wherein it was alleged that Radhey Mohan was gone in adoption to one Ram Lal Mochi, a member of Schedule Caste on December 13, 1958. On the basis of the said adoption deed the Additional District Magistrate Dholpur issued a certificate on March 10, 1978 certifying Radhey Mohan being son of Ram Lal Mochi as belonging to Scheduled Caste. Radhey Mohan then represented the Department to treat him as a member of the Scheduled Caste and him name was shown in the category of SC in the seniority list published on March 21, 1995. Radhey Mohan then represented the Department to treat him as a member of the Scheduled Caste and him name was shown in the category of SC in the seniority list published on March 21, 1995. Treating himself to be a member of SC, Radhey Mohan prayed for the benefits available to a member of SC with a further prayer for promotion to the post of Vice Principal from the date his junior was promoted. Learned Single Judge after having placed reliance on AJ Joseph vs. U.O.I. (1), held that Radhey Mohan after having already appointed and confirmed on the post of Lecturer as a general category candidate, was not entitled to claim further promotion against the reserve category quota. (5). This fact is not in dispute that Radhey Mohan got married in 1968 with Smt. Ansuya, who was Brahmin by Caste and out of wedlock Ashutosh was born on November 18, 1970. Ashutosh submitted application of the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit as a Scheduled Caste candidate and was called for interview by the RPSC on March 11, 1996. Ashutosh appeared in the interview with all the original documents including the Scheduled Caste certificate issued by the Tehsildar Bharatpur on June 16, 1994. Ashutosh thereafter was appointed on the post of Lecturer as a Scheduled Caste appointee and he joined his services. The RPSC vide order dated December 10, 1996 cancelled his appointment on the ground that Scheduled Caste certificate filed by him was forged document. Director of Education vide order dated December 13, 1996 communicated the decision of the RPSC to Ashutosh on a writ petition being preferred by Ashutosh, Single Bench of this Court vide order dated January 24, 1999 directed to hold an enquiry in regard to the allegations of filing forged caste certificate by Ashutosh, Director of College Education vide letter dated July 30, 1997 intimated Ashutosh that enquiry was conducted in view of High Courts order dated January 24, 1997 and the Scheduled Caste Certificate produced by him was found illegal. Ashutosh was granted fifteen days time to place objections against the enquiry. On August 9, 1998 Ashutosh submitted objections and prayed to set aside the decision and to reinstate him in the services. The RPSC vide letter dated Sept. 29, 1997 again issued show cause notice to Ashutosh. Ashutosh was granted fifteen days time to place objections against the enquiry. On August 9, 1998 Ashutosh submitted objections and prayed to set aside the decision and to reinstate him in the services. The RPSC vide letter dated Sept. 29, 1997 again issued show cause notice to Ashutosh. A reply to the said notice was submitted by Ashutosh and thereafter writ petition was filed seeking quashing of the aforesaid communication and continuance in the service. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of Ashutosh by making following observations- ``The petitioner being born to such Scheduled Caste does acquire the Scheduled Caste status by birth and not by voluntary act, and therefore, any Scheduled Caste who acquires the status by birth is entitled to the benefits of reservations for being born in Scheduled Caste family as he does not fall under the category of adoption or inducted in the Scheduled Caste family because of his own volition. (6). We have heard the rival submissions and scanned the record. (7). Undisputed facts that emerged from the material on record may be summarized. (i) Radhey Mohan was born in a Brahmin family on April 1, 1944. (ii) Radhey Mohan was married to a Brahmin lady Smt. Ansuya in 1968 and out of the wedlock Ashutosh was born on November 18, 1970. (iii) Adoption deed was got registered on November 27, 1972 wherein it was stated that Radhey Mohan was gone in adoption to one Ram Lal Mochi on December 13, 1958. (iv) Radhey Mohan applied to the post of Lecturer as a general category candidate showing his fathers name was Tej Singh Vashisth and got appointment as Lecturer on August 7, 1967 and was confirmed on the said post on May 13, 1972. (8). Admittedly the rights of Radhey Mohan and Ashutosh involved in the instant appeals depend on the adoption deed which was allegedly registered on November 27, 1972. A close look at the said adoption deed demonstrates that it was executed by Ram Lal S/o Narainji Mochi inhabitant of Karauli. (8). Admittedly the rights of Radhey Mohan and Ashutosh involved in the instant appeals depend on the adoption deed which was allegedly registered on November 27, 1972. A close look at the said adoption deed demonstrates that it was executed by Ram Lal S/o Narainji Mochi inhabitant of Karauli. It was stated in the deed as under- ^^eSa fd jkeyky oYn Jh ukjk;.k th eksph lkfdu djksyh ipiu o"kZ dk gwWA esjs dksbZ iq= u Fkk vkSj u Hkfo"; esa gksus dh vkkk FkhA fgUnw /keZkkL=ksa ds vuqlkj fcuk iq= ds xfr ugha gksrh blfy, esus Lo- Jh rstflag th czkã.k lkfdu izksfgr eksgYyk Hkjriqj ds nks iq= Jh xksfoUnkj.k o jk/kseksgu esa ls jk/kseksgu dks] budh ekrkth Jherh ikoZrh nsoh tks fd bu nksuksa dh rRdkyhu laj{kd Fkh] rk- 13-12-1958 dks mudh jtkeanh ls xksn fy;k rHkh ls jk/kseksgu dks i<+kbZ oxSjg ds fy, [kpkZ Hkh nsrk jgk vkSj ;s dHkh Hkjriqj dHkh Xokfy;j i<+us dh xtZ ls vkSj dHkh ;gka esjs ikl jgsA fdlh fyf[kr nLrkost dh deh ds dkj.k ;s viuh oYn esa vius LoxhZ; firkth dk uke gh fy[krs jgsA vc Hkfo"; esa esjk xksn fy;k cSVk viuh oYn esa esjk uke fy[k lds] esjs vlyh okfjl ds :i esa esjs ikl gh jgs vkSj ,d dkuwuh lun izkIr gks tk; blfy, eSa bl xksnukesa dks jftLVªsku djkus ds fy, isk djrk gwWA jk/kseksgu dh ekrkth ¼xksn nsus okyh½ dh jtkeUnh ds ,oa xokgksa ds nLr[kr Hkh uhps ekStwn gSaA** (9). It is evident from the above deed that Ram Lal although married yet did not have a son therefore he had decided to adopt Radhey Mohan. (10). At this juncture we deem it appropriate to refer to the relevant statutory provisions. Section 6 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,1956 (for short the Act) provides that- ``No adoption shall be valid unless- (i) the person adopting has the capacity, and also the right to take in adoption. (ii) .... (iii) .... (iv) .... (11). (10). At this juncture we deem it appropriate to refer to the relevant statutory provisions. Section 6 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,1956 (for short the Act) provides that- ``No adoption shall be valid unless- (i) the person adopting has the capacity, and also the right to take in adoption. (ii) .... (iii) .... (iv) .... (11). Section 7 of the Act mandates that- ``Any male Hindu who is of sound mind and is not a minor has the capacity to take a son or a daughter in adoption; Provided that, if he has a wife living, he shall not adopt except with the consent of his wife unless the wife has completely and finally renounced the world or has ceased to be a Hindu or has been declared by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind. Explanation : If a person has more than one wife living at the time of adoption, the consent of all the wives is necessary unless the consent of any one of them is unnecessary for any of the reasons specified in the preceding proviso. (12). A personal of the adoption deed allegedly executed by Ram Lal reveals that before or at the time of adopting Radhey Mohan, he did not obtain consent of his wife. Ram Lal did not even state in the deed that his wife was not alive and obtaining her consent was not possible. Thus as per proviso appended to Section 7 of the Act, Ram Lal without the consent of his wife did not have the capacity to take Radhey Mohan in adoption and the adoption does not appear to be prima facie valid in view of section 6(i) of the Act. Therefore unless a competent civil court declares the adoption of Radhey Mohan by Ram Lal as valid, we find ourselves unable to draw any presumption as to the validity of the said adoption. (13). Both Radhey Mohan and Ashutosh did not acquire any right whatsoever from the alleged adoption deed. Radhey Mohan and Ashutosh were born as members of general caste and they shall continue to remain as such. (13). Both Radhey Mohan and Ashutosh did not acquire any right whatsoever from the alleged adoption deed. Radhey Mohan and Ashutosh were born as members of general caste and they shall continue to remain as such. In view of the clear provisions contained in sections 6 and 7 of the Act, it is not necessary for us to discuss the case law cited before us by the learned counsel appearing for Radhey Mohan and Ashutosh in regard to the question as to what is a caste? (14). Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition of Ashutosh did not examine the provisions contained in sections 6 and 7 of the Act and the impugned order in our view is not sustainable. We, however, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition of Radhey Mohan was dismissed. (15). Consequently, the special appeal of appellant Radhey Mohan being devoid of merit stands dismissed. The special appeals submitted by the State of Rajasthan and RPSC are allowed and the order dated October 16, 1998 of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition of the respondent Ashutosh shall stand set aside. No costs.