JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by adopted son of late Shri Gulab Singh who was working on the post of Class-IV employee and died while in service on 31.1.2011. It is submitted that after death of his father late Gulab Singh, an application was filed by the petitioner along with copy of registered adoption deed Annexure-1 for providing appointment on compassionate ground being adopted son of Gulab Singh under the Rules of 1996 but Director (Secondary), Education Department rejected the application for providing appointment on compassionate ground while saying that as per Rule 10 (iv) of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956. The adoption of the petitioner by late Gulab Singh is not permissible. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that adoption deed was executed on 15.10.2008 but before that according to customs, petitioner was adopted by late Gulab Singh and later on the adoption deed was executed and got registered, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner's case falls under Rule 10 (iv) of the Rules of 1956. In view of above, it is submitted that impugned order Annexure-6 dated 2.1.2012 and communication dated 11.6.2012 may be quashed and respondents may be directed to consider the case of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 3. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards the judgment rendered by this Court in SBCWP No.6066/2007 (Pankaj v. State of Raj. & Ors.) decided on 16.5.2012. In view of above, the respondent authorities have no jurisdiction to adjudicate a document for the purpose of granting benefits for appointment on compassionate ground as adopted son of late Gulab Singh, therefore, it is submitted that this writ petition may be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that adoption can be made as per customs but here in this case the petitioner is claiming his right on the basis of registered adoption deed Annexure-1, executed on 15.10.2008 and on that date the petitioner was more than 15 years of age, therefore, the said adoption cannot be treated to a valid adoption, therefore, the order passed by the respondents refusing the claim of the petitioner is justified, therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed. 5. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the adoption deed Annexure-1 in which it is specifically mentioned that some years back, petitioner was adopted by late Gulab Singh as per customs and now it is felt necessary to execute the written adoption deed, therefore, the adoption deed was executed and got registered in view of this fact, it cannot be said that the date on which adoption deed was executed can be considered for assessment of age for the purpose of adoption. 6. The following assertion has been made in the adoption deed Annexure-1 which reads as under : " tks fd mijksDr mHk; i{kdkjku fgUnq /keZ dks ekuus okys gSa rFkk gekjh tkfr esa xksn ysus o nsus dk fjokt gS rFkk fgUnq /keZ esa ekU;rk gS fd iq= ds fcuk xfr ugha gksrh f}rh; i{kdkj dh Hkh bPNk gS fd mudh e`R;q ds i'pkr~ mudk Hkh fof/k fo/kku fjokt ds vuqlkj nkg laLdkj fd;k tk;] J`kn riZ.k vkfn fd;k tk;A f}rh; i{kdkj Jh xqykcflag dk fookg Jhefr Qwy daoj ds lkFk gqvk Fkk rFkk fookg i'pkr~ f}rh; i{k ds vkt fnu rd dksbZ lUrku ugha gqbZ gS rFkk u gh vc lUrku gkosus dh dksbZ mEehn gS] ftlls f}rh; i{k iwjh rjg ls fujk'k gks x;s gSA izFke i{k lqesjflag f}rh; i{k dk lxk NksVk HkkbZ gS ftuds 1 iq=h o 4 iq= gS ftlesa ls ,d iq= dsljflag tks viuh ckY;koLFkk ls gh f}rh; i{k ds ikl jgrk vk jgk gS rFkk f}rh; i{k us dsljflag dks iky iksl dj cM+k fd;k rFkk blds f'k{kk vkfn dh O;oLFkk dhA f}rh; i{k bls vius iq= leku gh ekurk gS rFkk dsljflag f}rh; i{k ds ikl iq= dh gSfl;r ls gh jgrk vk jgk gS rFkk f}rh; i{k dh lsok pkdjh djrk gSA f}rh; i{k dh iRuh Jherh Qwy daoj us Hkh dqN o"kZ iwoZ esa dsljflag dks xksn ysus dh bPNk dh Fkh vkSj lekt esa pqfuUnk O;fDr;ksa ds lkeus gh f}rh; i{k us r`rh; i{k dsljflag dks xksn esa cSBkdj lkQk igukdj o xqM /kk.ks caVokdj xksn dh jLe iwjh dhA pwafd ml le; fy[kk i<+h ugha dh x;h ,oa lekt dh fy[kkoV dk dkuwuh ekU;rk ugha gksus ds dkj.k vkt fnukad dks mDr xksnukek fy[kokdj jftLV~MZ djokus gsrq is'k fd;k tk jgk gSA blesa lHkh i{kdkjku lger gSA " 7. In view of above, denial of appointment on compassionate ground is totally illegal because the day on which the adoption deed was registered cannot be taken into consideration. Further, the respondent authorities have no jurisdiction to adjudicate any document to deny appointment to the petitioner in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in case of Pankaj (supra), in which following adjudication is made:- "After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the firm opinion that no executive or administrative authority like the District Education Officer can exercise the jurisdiction to adjudicate or to give opinion with regard to legality of the document. The authority can assess the genuineness of the document if it appears to be forged; but, in this case, the District Education Officer (Secondary), Bikaner exceeded his jurisdiction to assess the validity of adoption-deed which is not permissible in law. For this reason alone, the communication dated 12.07.2007 deserves to be quashed. In addition to the above reason, the other reason is also there with regard to assertion made by the said authority to deny appointment. In the impugned communication, it is observed by the District Education Officer (Secondary), Bikaner that the petitioner is only son of his natural parents but this fact is not correct. As per the reply filed by the respondents itself, in which, they accepted that the natural parents of the petitioner are having two issues - daughter Kavita and petitioner Pankaj. Therefore, on this ground also denial by the respondents cannot be sustained. With regard to registration of the adoption-deed, it is very strange that no such provision is there in the Act of 1956 that adoption-deed must be registered one for its being a valid adoption-deed. Adoption can be made under customs, therefore, the adoption-deed filed by the petitioner cannot be treated to be unregistered document for the purpose of denial of appointment on compassionate ground. Wife of late Shiv Prakash Swami herself deposed in the affidavit that during the life-time of her husband late Shiv Prakash Swami they adopted the petitioner as their son. On the basis of above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that denial of appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner vide communication dated 12.07.2007 is totally unfounded and against the basic principles of law. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned communication dated 12.07.2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. On the basis of above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that denial of appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner vide communication dated 12.07.2007 is totally unfounded and against the basic principles of law. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned communication dated 12.07.2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to provide appointment to the petitioner in accordance with Rules of 1996 as per his qualification, within a period of one month from the date of filing certified copy of this order." 8. In view of above, I am of the firm opinion that the order Annexure-6 passed by the Director and consequential order Annexure-7 dated 11.6.12 is not sustainable in law, therefore, the order Annexures-6 and 7 are hereby quashed and set aside and respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for providing appointment on compassionate ground being adopted son of late Gulab Singh within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and provide appointment as per rules.Petition Allowed. *******