ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 28/6/2022 (Annex.14) passed by the respondents, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate basis under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of the Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (‘the Rules, 1996’) has been rejected. 2. It is inter alia indicated in the petition that the petitioner is son of late Smt. Shankuntala Bhati, who was serving with the respondent PHED Department and died while in service on 9/5/2021. It is claimed that Smt. Shankuntala Bhati was survived by petitioner – her son and one daughter. It is also indicated that though two sons were born to Smt. Shankuntala Bhati, however, during her lifetime she gave her son – Shakti Singh in adoption to uncle of the petitioner by way of a registered adoption deed dated 28/1/2011. The petitioner applied for appointment under the Rules of 1996 being the only person entitled under the Rules to seek compassionate appointment as his sister was married at the time of death of their mother. 3. It is indicated that on application being made, the respondents from time to time raised queries, sought documents and explanation, which were promptly given by the petitioner and when despite completing all the formalities needful was not done by the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court by filing SBCWP No. 7613/2022 which came to be disposed of on 26/5/2022 (Annex.12), wherein the petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of and the competent authority was directed to dispose of the pending application of the petitioner with utmost expedition, in any case before 30/6/2022. 4. The petitioner again made a representation and by order dated 28/6/2022 (Annex.14) the application made by the petitioner was rejected. The application has been rejected by indicating that name of Shakti Singh has not been indicated in the application and affidavits filed for the purpose of seeking appointment and said Shakti Singh has not accorded his No Objection. Further, the fact of giving Shakti Singh in adoption has not been informed to the Department. The application has been rejected by indicating that name of Shakti Singh has not been indicated in the application and affidavits filed for the purpose of seeking appointment and said Shakti Singh has not accorded his No Objection. Further, the fact of giving Shakti Singh in adoption has not been informed to the Department. Based on the said aspect, it was observed that the application was liable to be dismissed as the information regarding adoption was not communicated to the Department, son Shakti Singh was given in adoption at the age of 24 years and there is no mention of any custom and, therefore, the adoption was not valid, the amount of GPF/State Insurance has been received by all the three children and the affidavit given by Shakti Singh indicates the name of natural father, as Shakti Singh is working with the Union Bank of India, under Rule 5 of the Rules, 1996 as one of the family members of the deceased is already in service with the PSU Bank, the application for compassionate appointment could not be accepted and consequently dismissed the same. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that action of the respondents in rejecting the application of the petitioner by not recognizing the adoption of his brother Shakti Singh on the purported grounds indicated in the order impugned is ex facie illegal. 6. Submissions have been made that the adoption took place way back in the year 2011 by way of a registered adoption deed. It is not the case of the respondents that the said adoption deed is a made up document and, therefore, in terms of provisions of Section 12 and 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (‘the Act, 1956’) as there is presumption as to the registered documents relating to adoption and the effect of adoption is that Shakti Singh cannot be treated as child of late Smt. Shakuntala Bhati, rejection of petitioner’s application on account of Shakti Singh being in employment of PSU Bank is illegal, incorrect, in valid and against the law and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to accord appointment to the petitioner under the Rules of 1996. 7. Reliance has been placed on Kumari Sweta vs. Managing Director, KPTCL & ors. 7. Reliance has been placed on Kumari Sweta vs. Managing Director, KPTCL & ors. : Writ Petition No. 211068/2020 decided on 23/2/2022 by Karnataka High Court, Kesar Singh vs. State of Raj. & Ors. : SBCWP No. 7356/2012 decided on 10/5/2013, Pankaj vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2013 (1) WLC (Raj.) 390, Motilal Jingar vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. : SBCWP No. 2040/2018, decided on 10/7/2018. 8. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the State inter alia reiterating the determination made by the authority that the adoption of Shakti Singh was not in consonance with the provisions of the Act, 1956 and, therefore, said Shakti Singh would continue to be treated as son of deceased Smt. Shakuntala Bhati and as he was in service of PSU Bank, under the provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules, 1996, the petitioner was not entitled to get compassionate appointment. Reference has been made to the fact that said Sakti Singh continued to be the son of deceased in the service record of the deceased and based on which, he also received the retiral benefits of deceased Smt. Shakuntala Bhati and, as such, the plea based on adoption even otherwise cannot be accepted and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal. 9. However, it was fairly conceded by learned AAG that insofar as the execution and authenticity of the document, which is a registered adoption deed, is concerned, the same has nowhere been questioned by the Department ever since the plea in this regard was raised by the petitioner. 10. During the pendency of the writ petition, daughter of the deceased, Smt. Bhawana Kanwar approached the respondents seeking compassionate appointment in view of the judgment in Priyanka Shrimali vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : Civil Reference No. 1/2022 decided on 13/9/2022, wherein, the Full Bench of this Court struck down the word ‘unmarried’ in the definition of ‘dependent’ under Rule 2(c) of the Rules, 1996 and has also made an application seeking impleadment in the present writ petition. 11. : Civil Reference No. 1/2022 decided on 13/9/2022, wherein, the Full Bench of this Court struck down the word ‘unmarried’ in the definition of ‘dependent’ under Rule 2(c) of the Rules, 1996 and has also made an application seeking impleadment in the present writ petition. 11. The plea raised by the daughter need not detain this Court inasmuch as Full Bench of this Court in the case of Priyanka Shrimali (supra) had clearly laid down that striking down of word ‘unmarried’ from the definition by itself would not provide a cause of action to any applicant and it was confined to the cases which were pending before the competent authority or where the litigation was pending on the date of the order only. 12. As the applicant has, for the first time, raised the issue before the respondents after the judgment in the case of Priyanka Shrimali (supra), in view of the directions given by the Full Bench, the applicant cannot claim any relief. 13. Consequently, the application seeking impleadment is dismissed. 14. Coming to the case of the petitioner, it is not in dispute that the deceased Smt. Shakuntala Bhati had three children, two sons and one daughter, while one son Shakti Singh was given in adoption vide Annex.2 by way of a registered adoption deed on 28/1/2011 to his uncle, at the time of her death on 9/5/2021 she was survived by a son -petitioner and a daughter – Bhawana. The application made by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment, after inaction on the part of the respondents for a long time and after directions were given by this Court for disposal of the application before 30/6/2022, came to be decided on 28/6/2022 denying compassionate appointment to the petitioner on account of the fact that giving of Shakti Singh in adoption was not valid and as Shakti Singh was in service with the PSU Bank, under Rule 5 of the Rules, 1996 the petitioner was not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. Relevant part of the order impugned reads as under: ^^Jh eksgu flag HkkVh }kjk izLrqr fd;s x;s vkosnu i= ,oa 'kiFk i=ksa es e`rd deZpkjh ds ifjokj ds lnL;ksa esa Jh eksgu flag HkkVh iq= o Jherh Hkkouk daoj fookfgr iq=h ds uke vafdr fd;s gS rFkk Jh 'kfDr flag HkkVh dk uke vafdr ugha fd;k gS u gh 'kfDr flag }kjk Jh eksgu flag HkkVh dks vuqdEikRed fu;qfDr fn;s tkus dh lgefr dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k tk jgk gSA e`r deZpkjh }kjk xksn iq= fn;s tkus dh thou dky ds nkSjku lwpuk izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gSA mijksDr rF;ksa ls ;g Li"V gS fd %& 1- LoŒ Jherh 'kdqUryk HkkVh }kjk vius thou dky esa iq= Jh 'kfDr flag HkkVh dks xksn fn;s tkus lacaf/kr lwpuk foHkkx dks izLrqr ugha dh FkhA bl dkj.k dkfeZd ¼d&2½ foHkkx ds ifji=kns'k Øekad i-5¼51½dkfeZd@d&2@88 fnukad 26-08-2006 ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ dk vkosnu Lohdk;Z ;ksX; ugha gSA 2- xksnukek esa Jh 'kfDr flag HkkVh dks 24 o"kZ dh vk;q esa xksn fn;k tkuk n'kkZ;k x;k gS rFkk xksnukek esa ,slh dksbZ :fढ ;k izFkk gksus dk dksbZ mYys[k vafdr ugh ls fof/kd :i ls fn;k x;k nRrd iq= ugha ekuk tk ldrkA 3- LoŒ Jherh 'kdqUryk HkkVh ds thih,Q@jkT; chek dk Hkqxrku mudh rhuksa lUrkuksa }kjk izkIr fd;k x;k] ftlesa Jh 'kfDr flag HkkVh }kjk fn;s x;s 'kiFk i= esa muds izkd`frd firk dk gh uke ntZ gSA 4- Jh 'kfDr flag HkkVh ¼vkosnd dk HkkbZ½ }kjk izLrqr fd;s x;s nLrkostksa esa miyC/k cSad ikl cqd ds vuqlkj Jh 'kfDr flag HkkVh ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k ¼ih,l;w½ esa dk;Zjr gSA jktLFkku e`r ljdkjh deZpkfj;ksa ds vkfJrksa dks vuqdEikRed fu;qfDr fu;e] 1996 ds fu;e 5 ds vuqlkj ^^e`r ljdkjh deZpkjh dk dksbZ Hkh oS/k vkfJr] deZpkjh dh e`R;q ds le; ,oa vuqdEikRed fu;qfDr iznku djrs le; rd] vFkkZr nksuksa dh n'kkvksa esa] jkT; ljdkj vFkok dsUnz ;k vU; jkT; ljdkjksa ds v/khu ,oa ,sls fdlh fof/k }kjk LFkkfir cksMZ@laxBu@fuxe tks iw.kZr% ;k Hkkxr% dsUnz@jkT; ljdkj ds LokfeRo ;k fu;U=.k esa gks] ds v/khu ljdkjh lsok esa ugha gksuk pkfg;sA** vr% e`rd deZpkjh dk ,d vkfJr iq= fu;qDr gksus ds dkj.k vuqdEikRed fu;qfDr ns; ugha gSA vr% mijksDr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij Jh eksgu flag HkkVh iq= LoŒ Jherh 'kdqUryk HkkVh dks jktLFkku e`r ljdkjh deZpkfj;ksa ds vkfJrksa dks vuqdEikRed fu;qfDr fu;e] 1996 ds fu;e 5 ds vuqlkj vuqdEikRed fu;qfDr ns; ugha gSA rnuqlkj Jh eksgu falg HkkVh dk fnukad 01-06-2021 dks izLrqr fd;k x;k vkosnu i= dk fuLrkj.k fd;k tkrk gSA^^ 15. The entire basis of denial of compassionate appointment to the petitioner is that the adoption was not in terms of the provisions of the Act, 1956 and that after the death of Smt. Shakuntala Bhati, Shakti Singh also received the retiral benefits as her legal representative. 16. The respondents apparently have not taken into consideration the provisions of Section 16 of the Act, 1956, which deals with presumption as to registered documents relating to adoption and the same reads as under: “16. Presumption as to registered documents relating to adoption.-Whenever any document registered under any law for the time being in force is produced before any court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption, the court shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of the Act unless and until it is disproved.” 17. The provision is very clear which provides for a presumption in case of a registered document relating to adoption and creates a presumption that the adoption has been made in compliance of the provisions of the Act and the burden has been cast on the person questioning the adoption to disprove the said aspect. 18. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deu & Ors. vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. : (1998) 8 SCC 701 , after quoting the provisions of Section 16 of the Act, 1956 has laid down as under : “3. In view of Section 16 aforesaid whenever any document registered under any law for the time being in force is produced before any court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the persons mentioned therein, the court shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of the said Act unless and until it is disproved. According to us, it was not open to the defendants of the said suit for partition to collaterally challenge the said registered deed of partition. In view of Section 16 of the aforesaid Act it was open to them to disprove such deed of adoption but for that they had to take independent proceedings. The High Court was fully justified in directing that the respondent be substituted in place of Smt. Phulla on the basis of the registered deed of adoption produced before the court.” 19. The High Court was fully justified in directing that the respondent be substituted in place of Smt. Phulla on the basis of the registered deed of adoption produced before the court.” 19. In view of the above, in face of a registered adoption deed executed way back in the year 2011 i.e. 10 years prior to the death of Smt. Shakuntala Bhati, and the fact that this is not even the case of the respondents that the document (Annex.2) relating to adoption is a made up document, rejection of the plea of giving Shakti Singh in adoption by Smt. Shakuntala Bhati cannot be sustained. 20. The mere fact that Smt. Shakuntala Bhati during her life time did not inform the respondent about the giving in adoption of her son Shakti Singh cannot be a reason sufficient to deny the fact of adoption as the deceased was working only as a Helper with the Department and further the fact that Shakti Singh received the retiral benefits of deceased Shakuntala Bhati on account of unamended service record of his natural mother by itself cannot wipe out the fact that he went in adoption evidenced by a registered document (Annex.2). 21. In view of the above fact situation, wherein, the respondents by merely relying on the conditions of a valid adoption are seeking to question the adoption without reference to the presumption which is attached to a registered adoption deed without disproving it in accordance with the established procedure, as laid down in the case of Deu (supra), the consequential denial of appointment to the petitioner on the purported ground that the son given in adoption is in service of PSU Bank cannot be sustained. 22. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 28/6/2022 (Annex.14) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to process the application of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, ignoring the fact that Shakti Singh, the son of deceased Smt. Shankuntala Bhati, given in adoption, was in service of PSU Bank and accord the petitioner compassionate appointment, if he is otherwise eligible and entitled under the provisions of the Rules of 1996.