ORDER : The above writ petition is filed impugning the endorsement issued by the 1st respondent vide Roc.No.31376/2019/C1 dated 12.03.2020, in which the petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected. 2. The Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that Smt.Neppalli Deekshayamma, an employee in 1st respondent-Corporation died in harness, while working as Sweeper on 05.04.2016. Smt.Neppalli Deekshayamma married one Neppalli Kotaiah, after the death of his first wife Machamma. Sri Neppalli Kotaiah and Machamma were blessed with a son named Saibabu. The said Saibabu married Sarojini and they were blessed with the petitioner. The petitioner was adopted by N.Kotaiah and Deekshayamma on 12.10.1986 and the Adopted Deed was registered on 26.10.1987. The petitioner being the adopted son performed the last rites of Deekshayamma. Petitioner initially filed W.P.No.15377 of 2019 to consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. The said writ petition was disposed of on 01.10.2019. Since the order was not implemented, the petitioner filed C.C.No.115 of 2020. Thereafter the endorsement impugned (Ex.P12) was issued. 3. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 1st respondent. It was contended, inter alia, that the adoption of the petitioner is contrary to Section 11 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short “the Act”). Though the adoption deed was registered, once the adoption itself was made contrary to Section 11 of the Act and is void, the petitioner's case for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected. 4. Heard Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.Sreedhara Murthy, learned standing counsel for 1st respondent, and Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services for respondents 2 and 3. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 1st respondent without conducting any inquiry and affording opportunity rejected the case of the petitioner. He also would submit that the petitioner being the adopted son of the deceased, the respondents should have been employed on compassionate grounds. 6. Sri K.Sreedhara Murthy, learned standing counsel for 1st respondent would submit that 1st respondent after considering all the aspects, passed the order impugned in the writ petition. He would also submit that the contempt case filed by the petitioner was closed on 08.04.2021. He would further submit that the adoption of the petitioner was made contrary to the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and hence the petitioner cannot claim any benefit out of the same. He would also submit that the contempt case filed by the petitioner was closed on 08.04.2021. He would further submit that the adoption of the petitioner was made contrary to the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and hence the petitioner cannot claim any benefit out of the same. 7. Now, the point for consideration is : Does the endorsement dated 12.03.2020 (Ex.P12), impugned in the writ petition, suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court to exercise judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 8. As seen from Ex.P9 adoption deed, the natural parents of the petitioner are Neppalli Saibabu, S/o Kotaiah, and his wife N.Sarojini. The adoption took place at Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Temple, Vijayawada on 12.10.1986 and later, the document was registered on 26.10.1987. In the deed of adoption, it was specifically mentioned about adoption and the parties to the said adoption. Despite the recital in the deed of adoption regarding mentioning the name of the adopted father in the school records of the petitioner, Ex.P8 is the certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, the name of the petitioner was mentioned as ‘Gowri Sankar Neppali’ and father’s name was mentioned as ‘Saibaba.N’. To the same effect is the certificate issued by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh filed on Page No.37 of material papers. Thus, in the school records, the name of the original father is mentioned instead of the adopted father. 9. Of course, while exercising the judicial review, this Court normally, will not go into disputed questions of fact. Even going by the pleaded case of the petitioner (as per submission of learned counsel for petitioner), N.Kotaiah married Machamma and they were blessed with Saibabu. After the death of Machamma, Sri Kotaiah married Deekshayamma and since they had no issues, they adopted the son of Saibabu, the petitioner herein. It is an admitted fact that Sri Saibabu is the biological son of Sri Kotaiah and the petitioner is the biological son of Sri Saibabu. Thus, Sri Kotaiah is the paternal grandfather of the petitioner. 10. Chapter II of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 deals with adoption. It is an admitted fact that Sri Saibabu is the biological son of Sri Kotaiah and the petitioner is the biological son of Sri Saibabu. Thus, Sri Kotaiah is the paternal grandfather of the petitioner. 10. Chapter II of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 deals with adoption. Section 5 of the Act prescribes that no adoption shall be made after the commencement of this Act by or to a Hindu except following the provisions contained in this Chapter, and any adoption made in contravention of the said provisions shall be void. A void adoption shall neither create any rights in the adoptive family nor destroy the rights of any person in the family of his or her birth. 11. Section 6 prescribes requisites for a valid adoption. It is apt to extract Section 6, which reads thus: 6. Requisites of a valid adoption.?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. The other conditions are prescribed in Section 11 of the Act. For better appreciation, Section 11 (i) of the Act is extracted thus: 11. Other conditions for a valid adoption.?In every adoption, the following conditions must be complied with: ? (i) if the adoption is of a son, the adoptive father or mother by whom the adoption is made must not have a Hindu son son’s son or son’s son’s son (whether by legitimate blood relationship or by adoption) living at the time of adoption; 13. Thus, a conjoint reading of both the sections extracted would manifest that during the lifetime of a natural son, parents cannot adopt another child. Even if such an adoption took place, it is void. That being the legal outline, going by the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and the pleadings, the adoption of the petitioner by N.Kotaiah and Deekshayamma, during the lifetime of Saibabu is void. 14. During the lifetime of a male issue, whether adoption can be made, was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Salekh Chand (Dead) By LRs. Vs Satya Gupta and Ors. 14. During the lifetime of a male issue, whether adoption can be made, was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Salekh Chand (Dead) By LRs. Vs Satya Gupta and Ors. (2008) 13 SCC 119 , wherein it was held thus: “It is not disputed that even under the old Hindu law, adoption during the lifetime of a male issue was specifically prohibited. In addition, I have observed that such an adoption even if made would be contrary to the concept of adoption and the purpose thereof, and unreasonable. Without entering into the arena of controversy whether there was such a custom, it can be said that even if there was such a custom, the same was not a valid custom." 15. Thus, the adoption of the petitioner by Sri N.Kotaiah and Smt Deekshayamma, when Saibabu, the natural son is alive, as discussed supra, is legally void. 16. At the hearing, though the learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded mala fides on the part of 1st respondent and others. However, the person against whom malice was attributed is not shown as a party respondent to the writ petition to answer the said charge. 17. Whenever allegations of mala fides are made, the persons against whom the same are leveled need to be impleaded as parties to the proceedings enabling them to answer. In Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited Vs. RDS Projects and others, (2013) 1 SCC 524 the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: “… There is yet another aspect which cannot be ignored. As and when allegations of mala fides are made, the persons against whom the same are leveled need to be impleaded as parties to the proceedings to enable them to answer the charge. In the absence of the person concerned as a party in his/her individual capacity, it will neither fair nor proper to record a finding that malice in fact had vitiated the action taken by the authority concerned…” 18. In the case at hand, no individual was arrayed as a party respondent to the writ petition enabling that person to answer the charge. In the absence, this Court does not find any merit in the said plea. 19. In the case at hand, no individual was arrayed as a party respondent to the writ petition enabling that person to answer the charge. In the absence, this Court does not find any merit in the said plea. 19. The other contention of learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Paragraph-20 of the writ affidavit about some internal issues among the employees, being the disputed question of fact, this Court is not going into those aspects. 20. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that before passing the impugned endorsement, the authority ought to have conducted an inquiry, in the considered opinion of this Court, it doesn’t require. The 1st respondent normally will not usurp the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and record a finding. In fact, the 1st respondent, based on legal opinion, rejected the claim of the petitioner by quoting Section 11 of the Act. 21. It is a settled principle of law that to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, one must satisfy infringement of its right be it legal or statutory, and corresponding legal obligation on the part of the respondent. Thus, the existence of legal rights is a sine qua non for invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 22. In State of U.P. and others Vs. Harish Chandra and others, (1996) 9 SCC 309 the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: "10. ... Under the Constitution, a Mandamus can be issued by the court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and the said right was subsisting on the date of the petition." 23. In Union of India Vs. S.B. Vohra, (2004) 2 SCC 150 the Hon’ble Apex Court considered a similar issue and held that for issuing a Writ of Mandamus in favor of a person, the person claiming must establish his legal right in himself. Then only a Writ of Mandamus could be issued against a person, who has a legal duty to perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so. 24. Then only a Writ of Mandamus could be issued against a person, who has a legal duty to perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so. 24. Given the discussion supra, the 1st respondent passed a reasoned order regarding the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds coupled with the petitioner’s failure to satisfy the Court regarding infringement of his right and corresponding legal obligation on the part of the respondent authorities, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition and thus the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 25. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. However, this order will not preclude the petitioner from approaching the competent Civil Court to get a declaration. The observations made, if any in the order, will not come in the way of the competent Court in adjudicating the legal and factual issues. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.