ORDER The Divisional Commissioner and the Joint Director of Public Instructions are before us challenging the order dated 12-9-2001 made in Application No. 4932 of 1996 by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal'). 2. Facts in brief are as follows.- The Joint Director of Public Instructions called for the names of eligible candidates from the employment exchange for appointment as Assistant Master, Grade II in High Schools in 1994. The District Employment Exchange sponsored the names of eligible candidates along with the names of the respondent. Respondent sought for appointment under category - Backward Class Group 'B'. According to him, his total income is less than Rs. 10,000/-. Respondent was selected for the post of Assistant Master Appointment order was issued on 30-8-1994. After appointment, a certificate produced by the respondent claiming Backward Class Group 'B' was sent for verification to the District Caste and Income Verification Committee. The Committee conducted a detailed enquiry. In the enquiry it was noticed that the respondent is a son of one H.K. Kalappaji and Putt a Gowramma, that Kalappaji is serving as Teacher in the Government Junior College, Halli Mysore, Holenarasipura Taluk, and that his annual income is Rs. 60,000/-. Respondent had stated before the Committee that his grandmother Smt. Sannamma had taken him on adoption in 1985, that he was under the custody of the adopted mother, that his adopted mother's income was less than Rs. 10,000/-. Verification Committee came to a conclusion that only for the purpose of getting appointment as Assistant Master-respondent was got adopted by his grandmother and that he has suppressed the facts. The Committee rejected his application for issue of verification certificate. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent preferred an appeal. Appeal stood rejected. Thereafter, respondent filed an Application No. 4932 of 1996 before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore. After hearing, the Tribunal has chosen to allow the application. This order is challenged by the State in this petition before us. 3. Notice was issued. Respondent entered appearance. Statement of objections is filed. 4. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties. 5. Sri S. Prakash Shetty, learned Government Advocate, would argue before us that the facts of the case would require our interference in the light of laudable object of providing reservation to the deserving candidates. 3. Notice was issued. Respondent entered appearance. Statement of objections is filed. 4. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties. 5. Sri S. Prakash Shetty, learned Government Advocate, would argue before us that the facts of the case would require our interference in the light of laudable object of providing reservation to the deserving candidates. Learned Counsel would say that the adoption in the case, if accepted, would defeat the very reservation policy of the State. Learned Counsel would say that the material on record would show that adoption has been made for the purpose of deriving benefit of employment in the case on hand, and that that would require our interference in the matter. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent would support the order of the Tribunal. 7. After hearing, we have carefully perused the order of the Tribunal. 8. Admitted facts would reveal that the respondent has produced a certificate providing for income as less than Rs. 10,000/- for the purpose of consideration of his case for employment. His case was considered. He was appointed. Thereafter, the certificate was scrutinized by a Committee and the Committee has come to a conclusion that the respondent's father was working as teacher and that his income is Rs. 60,000/- per annum. The Committee has also come to a conclusion that the adoption by his grandmother is only for the purpose of getting the Government job. The said certificate was unsuccessfully challenged in the appeal. Thereafter, respondent approached the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has accepted the case of the respondent. Let us see as to whether the Tribunal is justified in the case on hand. 9. The only short point that require our consideration is as to whether adoption in the given circumstances was obtained for the purpose of employment or not. 10. The Tribunal by a detailed order has accepted adoption in tern1S of its findings. No serious arguments are advanced with regard to the existence of adoption in the case on hand. It is no doubt true that the laudable object of reservation is meant only for those who are economically backward. There cannot be any quarrel with regard to the object of reservation. Nobody can misuse reservation meant for economically backward candidates in terms of the policy. It is no doubt true that the laudable object of reservation is meant only for those who are economically backward. There cannot be any quarrel with regard to the object of reservation. Nobody can misuse reservation meant for economically backward candidates in terms of the policy. But, what is required to be seen is as to whether the present facts would any way defeat the object of the reservation for economically deprived candidates. 11. Material on record would reveal that adoption deed is dated 14-61985. It was done by none other than the maternal grandmother of the respondent. He was also 17 years of age at that time. It is also seen that the respondent had throughout stayed with his maternal grandmother in KR. Nagar Taluk and pursued his education. He was the elder son of Kalappaji and Putta Gowramma. Adopted mother is not a stranger. Adoption is accepted. Annexure-A7 would support the statement that the respondent has lived with his adopted mother Sannamma at Sathi Grama in Krishnarajanagar Taluk. It is also seen that adoption is permissible in terms of the custom of the parties. Tribunal after noticing all these aspects of the matter has, rightly in our view, accepted the contention that adoption was not done for the purpose of employment. If adoption were to have been done just a year or two ago of the date of employment, petitioners would be right in stating that the adoption is adopted for the purpose of employment. Material facts and material documents would show that adoption has been done in the normal course of family affairs and that adoption cannot be negatived for the purpose of employment. In our view, Tribunal is correct in coming to a conclusion that the adoption is legal and valid and rejection of his appeal is unsustainable in law. We accept the findings of the Tribunal. 12. We also deem it proper to observe that in cases involving consideration of adoption, one has to go by the material facts and material pleadings. Mala fide adoption is certainly a matter that require interference. But, bona fide adoption not done only for the purpose of employment cannot come in the way of getting employment. In the circumstances, we are unable to accept the argument of the learned Government Advocate on the facts of this case. 13. Mala fide adoption is certainly a matter that require interference. But, bona fide adoption not done only for the purpose of employment cannot come in the way of getting employment. In the circumstances, we are unable to accept the argument of the learned Government Advocate on the facts of this case. 13. If adoption is accepted, then the family income is to be with reference to adoptive parents and not the natural parents. If adoptive parent's income is accepted, respondent is justified in getting employment on the ground of reservation in tern1S of the material placed on record. 14. Learned Government Advocate relies on a judgment of the Apex Court in Soosai v Union of India and Others. A reading of the said judgment would show that that was not a case of adoption but was one of conversion. Conversion stands, totally on a different footing than adoption at any rate, in the given circull1Stances, we are of the view that adoption is bona fide, and that therefore Tribunal is justified in accepting the application filed by the respondent. Order of the Tribunal is based of facts. No exception can be taken to the findings of the Tribunal based on facts. 15. We do not find any justifiable grounds to interfere with a well-reasoned order of the Tribunal. Petition accordingly stands rejected. No costs.