Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 222 (AP)

State of Andhra Pradesh v. Ramesh Kumar

2022-02-23

A.V.SESHA SAI, RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

body2022
ORDER : 1. Challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the order dated 31.08.2017, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (herein after called the Tribunal), in O.A.No.1896 of 2015. By way of the said order, the Tribunal allowed the said Original Application, and while setting aside the order of rejection dated 27.01.2015, issued by the Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Dowlaiswaram, directed the respondents in the Original Application, who are the petitioners herein to appoint the applicant/respondent herein as Junior Assistant, subject to the qualifications in terms of G.O.Ms.No.612, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 30.10.1991, within six (6) months from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. Respondent herein, claiming to be the adopted son of one Smt.Ch.Rajarajeswari, filed the aforesaid Original Application before the Tribunal. 2. Applicant/respondent herein is the son of the brother of Smt.Ch.Rajarajeswari and she lost her husband in the year 1991 and while she was working as a Canal Lascar in Godavari Western Division, Nidadavolu, she passed away on 28.02.2013. After her death, enclosing a copy of the unregistered adoption deed dated 15.11.1996 and the registered adoption deed dated 07.01.2013 and other documents, the respondent/applicant herein submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of G.O.Ms.No.612, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 30.10.1991. The said representation was forwarded to the office of the superintendent Engineer, Dowlaiswaram, by the Executive Officer, Godavari Western Division, Nidadavolu, West Godavari District on 24.05.2014. 3. The Superintendent Engineer-2nd respondent in the Original Application, who is the 2nd petitioner herein, vide memo No.SE/IC/DOW/AB/EC.3/ 8GW, dated 27.01.2015, rejected the request of the respondent herein for appointment on compassionate grounds on the ground that the deceased employee had taken the respondent herein in adoption, legally one month and 22 days only prior to the death of the employee. 4. In the above background, assailing the validity of the said memo dated 27.01.2015, by invoking the provisions of Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, the respondent herein filed O.A.No.1896 of 2015. By way of the order impugned in the present Writ Petition, the Tribunal allowed the said Original Application. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 5. Heard Sri K.Bheema Rao, learned Government Pleader for Services-III, for the petitioners and Sri Ch.Satya Sadhan, learned Advocate, representing Sri V.Mallik, learned counsel for the respondent, apart from perusing the entire material available on record. 6. By way of the order impugned in the present Writ Petition, the Tribunal allowed the said Original Application. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 5. Heard Sri K.Bheema Rao, learned Government Pleader for Services-III, for the petitioners and Sri Ch.Satya Sadhan, learned Advocate, representing Sri V.Mallik, learned counsel for the respondent, apart from perusing the entire material available on record. 6. Learned Government Pleader, reiterating the grounds taken in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, contends that the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous and contrary to law and runs counter to the scheme framed by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.612, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 30.10.1991. In elaboration, it is further submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the deceased employee, Smt.Ch.Rajarajeswari, had taken the respondent/applicant in adoption legally only one month and 22 days prior to her death and the same would not entitle the applicant to claim appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of G.O.Ms.No.612, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 30.10.1991. 7. On the contrary, learned counsel for the applicant/respondent contends that there is no error nor there exists any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and only after thoroughly examining all the issues, the Tribunal came to a conclusion, supported by reasons, that the respondents in the Original Application were not justified in declining to consider the request of the applicant/respondent. It is further submitted that the Tribunal, strictly adhering to the relevant provisions under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and also by taking into consideration the unregistered adoption deed dated 15.11.1996, and the undisputed realities, passed the impugned order, as such the same cannot be faulted. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the case of the applicant/respondent squarely falls under clause 2(ii) of G.O.Ms.No.612, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 30.10.1991, as such the Tribunal is perfectly justified in allowing the Original Application. 8. In the above background, now the issue that emerges for consideration of this Court in the present Writ Petition is: “whether the Tribunal is justified in allowing the Original Application filed by the respondent herein and whether the case of the respondent herein falls within the parameters of G.O.Ms.No.612, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 30.10.1991? 9. The Parliament enacted Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, codifying the law relating to adoptions and maintenance among Hindus. 10. 9. The Parliament enacted Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, codifying the law relating to adoptions and maintenance among Hindus. 10. Section 6 of the said legislation deals with the requisites of a valid adoption and the said provision of law reads as under: 11. No adoption shall be valid unless- “(i) the person adopting has the capacity, and also the right, to take in adoption; (ii) the person giving in adoption has the capacity to do so; (iii) the person adopted is capable of being taken in adoption; and (iv) the adoption is made in compliance with the other conditions mentioned in this Chapter.” 12. By way of Act 30 of 2010, the Parliament brought in amendment to the provision, pertaining to capacity of a female Hindu to take in adoption. So far section 8 of the Act, which came into being with effect from 31.08.2010, any female hindu who is of sound mind and is not a minor has the capacity to take son or daughter in adoption, provided that, if she has a husband living, she shall not adopt a son or daughter except with the consent of her husband, unless the husband 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. Section 11 of the Act deals with the other conditions for a valid adoption. 13. In the instant case, the husband of Smt.Ch.Rajarajeswari, pre-deceased her in the year 1991. Admittedly, it is not the case of the petitioners herein, that there is contravention of any one of the aforesaid provisions of law. The only objection taken by the petitioners is that the case of the applicant/respondent herein would not fall within the parameters of G.O.Ms.No.612, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 30.10.1991. For justifying the said contention, the petitioners herein seek to rely upon the registered adoption deed dated 07.1.2013, which admittedly came to be registered on the said date, which was obviously just before the death of the Smt.Ch.Rajarajeswari. 14. On the other hand, the categoric plea of the respondent/applicant is that at the age of 6 years, he was given in adoption to the deceased, Smt.Ch.Rajarajeswari, by way of an unregistered adoption deed dated 15.11.1996. 14. On the other hand, the categoric plea of the respondent/applicant is that at the age of 6 years, he was given in adoption to the deceased, Smt.Ch.Rajarajeswari, by way of an unregistered adoption deed dated 15.11.1996. Clause (2)(ii) of G.O.Ms.No.612, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 30.10.1991, stipulates that the adopted son or daughter of the deceased Government Servants may be considered for appointment, if the adoption had taken place legally, atleast 5 years prior to the date of demise of the Government servant. The Tribunal had taken into consideration the unregistered adoption deed dated 15.11.1996 and also specifically observed about the date of purchase of the Stamp as 14.11.1996. The Tribunal also took into consideration the principle laid down in the case of V.Anjaneyulu vs. Vadapalli Peddanna, 2005 (4) ALT 674 , about the registration of the adoption deed. The Tribunal also recorded a finding, that the execution of unregistered adoption deed dated 15.11.1996 was not disputed. 15. In the considered opinion of this Court, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error and patent perversity in the said order. It is a settled and well established principle of law, that invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari is impermissible, unless the order impugned suffers from jurisdictional error, patent perversity or passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 16. In the instant case, this Court does not find such contingencies in the order impugned in the present Writ Petition. 17. In view of the above reasons, this Court is not inclined to meddle with the well articulated order passed by the Tribunal, which is impugned in the Writ Petition. 18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.