[2025:RJ-JP:20302] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9518/2021 Rekhraj S/o Late Shri Devkran Jat, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Saradhana, District Ajmer ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Director, Agriculture Rajasthan, Panth Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur 3. Joint Director Agriculture (Admn.), Directorate, Rajasthan, Panth Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur 4. Assistant Director, Agriculture (Extension), Ajmer ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 14/05/2025 1. In the present writ petition, when same came up on board on 05.10.2021, 12.12.2023, 11.02.2025, 12.03.2025 and today as well, none has put in appearance, hence the writ petition is being considered on merits as per material available on record. 2. It appears that petitioner’s father Shri Devkran Jat was posted as an Agricultural Supervisor in the Directorate, Agriculture, and he passed away during service on 20.09.2019. The petitioner applied for according appointment on compassionate basis but his application has been dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2020 (Ann.3) pointing out that since petitioner has more than two living children, post to the cut off date i.e. 01.06.2002, hence he is not eligible to be considered for [2025:RJ-JP:20302] (2 of 3) [CW-9518/2021] compassionate appointment in the government service, in the light of Circular of the Department of Personnel dated 20.06.2021. 3. In the writ petition, petitioner does not dispute the factum of having more than two living children, post to the cut off date i.e. 01.06.2002, however he has come up with an explanation that one of his children, daughter Khushi has been given in adoption to Shri Jitendra Gaina and Smt. Sunita and in support of such plea, a document of unstamped and unregistered adoption deed dated 08.04.2019, has been placed on record. 4. This court, prima facie, is not convinced with the document of adoption deed dated 08.04.2019 and it cannot be treated as an admissible piece of evidence, to accept a lawful and valid adoption of petitioner’s daughter to Shri Jitendra Gaina and Smt. Sunita. The adoption deed does not evince any ceremony of adoption (giving and taking) and lacks the requisite details in respect of age of petitioner’s daughter as in the adoption deed, nowhere it has been mentioned that she is below the age of 15 years, which is an essential requirement as per section 10(iv) of The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,1956 (for short “HAMA,1956”). Further section 16 of HAMA,1956 stipulates a presumption of adoption on the basis of a registered adoption deed. In the case at hand, document of adoption is an unregistered document and no supportive document is enclosed therewith nor any declaration of adoption by the Civil Court, on the basis of such unregistered adoption deed, has been placed on record. 6. In view of above, this Court finds that the authority concerned has not committed any illegality, perversity much less [2025:RJ-JP:20302] (3 of 3) [CW-9518/2021] jurisdictional error in not accepting the factum of adoption on the basis of alleged document of adoption deed dated 08.04.2019 and not considering the candidature of petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis being hit by the Circular of the Department of Personnel dated 20.06.2021. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. 8. Stay application and any other pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J TN/41