TARUN AGARWALA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner contends that he is the adopted son of Jai Singh. He was adopted on 10. 4. 1983 according to hindu customs and traditions and that the adoption deed was duly registered. His father died on 29. 5. 1992. By an order of the Civil Judge, dated 24. 2. 1993, a succession certificate was granted in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that upon his fathers death, he applied for an appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules. The State Government by an order dated 14. 5. 2001 informed the District Magistrate that an adopted son was not entitled for appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. On the basis of this order the district Magistrate, respondent No. 2, by his order dated 30. 5. 2001 rejected the petitioners application for appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules. The petitioner has now preferred this writ petition for quashing the orders dated 14. 5. 2001 and 30. 5. 2001 (Annexures 6 and 7 to the writ petition) ( 2 ) HEARD Sri Anshu Chaudhary, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the respondents. ( 3 ) IN Singhasan Gupta v. State of U. P. and Anr. (1996) 1 UPLBEC 4, this Court has held that the claim of an adopted son could not be rejected on the ground that he was an adopted son and directed the authorities to consider his case for appointment if he was found to be valid. ( 4 ) IN Sunil Saxena v. State of U. P. and Ors. 1994 (68) FLR 283, this Court held that there was no difference between a real son and an adopted son and that an adopted son was entitled to all the benefits which a real son gets and was, therefore, entitled for an appointment under the dying-in-Harness, Rules, 1974. ( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid decisions, the order dated 14. 5. 2001, passed by the State Government as well as the order dated 30. 5. 2001, passed by the District Magistrate are quashed and the writ petition is allowed. ( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid decisions, the order dated 14. 5. 2001, passed by the State Government as well as the order dated 30. 5. 2001, passed by the District Magistrate are quashed and the writ petition is allowed. A mandamus is issued to the respondent No. 2 to consider the claim of the petitioner and, if it is found that he is an adopted son of the deceased, he should be given necessary appointment within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this judgment is produced before me. . .