IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT APPEAL NO: 1059 OF 2024. — Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated. 18.10.2024 in WP No. 13953 of 2021 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. The State of AP, Rep by Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Thullur Mandal, Guntur District Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Director General of Police, Government of Andhra Pradesh Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. The Superintendent of Police, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore. 4. The District Collector, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore. th 5. The Commandant, 9 District. Battalion APSP, Venkatagiri SPSR Nellore ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS AND P. Sai Siva Karthik, S/o. Late P. Satish Babu, aged 30 years, R/o. Dr No 5/74 Tilak Nagar, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District. ...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER lA NO: 2 OF 2024 ^ Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of impugned order dated. W.P.No.13953 of 2021 pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellants : GP FOR SERVICES 1^ Counsel for the Respondent: SRI PONNADA SREE VYAS'^ The Court made the following: JUDGMENT ID 18.10.2024 in i APHC010583422024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY. THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA the honourable SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT APPEAL NO: 1059/2024 [3516] MOHAN Between: The State Of AP and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND P Sai Siva Karthik Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PONNADA SREE VYAS The Court made the following Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Krishna Mohan) ...RESPONDENT Heard the learned counsel for the for the respondent. appellants and the learned counsel 2. This writ appeal arises against the order Judge in W.P.No.13953 of 2021 dated passed by the learned Single 18.10.2024. The appellants are the respondents and the respondent is the petitioner in the writ petition. The 2 0 respondent filed the above said writ petition questioning the action of the appellants herein especially the 4*^ appellant herein in refusing to grant the compassionate appointment to the respondent herein who is the adopted son of government employee and who died while in service. The said writ petition was allowed by setting aside the proceedings of the 4^^ respondent therein dated 12.08.2020 by directing the respondents therein to appoint the petitioner therein in a suitable post in the category of compassionate appointment. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that there was no adoption of the respondent. In fact an attempt was made to establish the same by filing the suit by the respondent herein against the natural parents showing them as defendants in O.S.No.131 of 2019 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudur seeking the declaration that the plaintiff is the legal heir of the deceased Panuganti Satish Babu. Obviously the suit was not contested by the natural parents and it was decreed exparte dated 10.10.2019 declaring the plaintiff therein/ respondent herein as the legal heir of the deceased employee. He also refers to the adoption deed dated 14.03.2017 to show that the respondent was given in adoption to the adoptive father late Panuganti Satish Babu by the natural parents of the respondent herein by further mentioning therein that the said adoption took place on 09.05.2003 but it was not reduced into writing at that point of time. The deceased employee who was claimed to be the adoptive father of the 3 SI respondent herein died on 31.01.2019 while in ill health. The school records service due to the prolonged and the other documents relating respondent herein clearly show that he is the son of the natural parents Panuganti Sai Ramesh Babu, but to the no where the adoptive father’ deceased employee there s name was mentioned. Even in the service record of the was no nomination of the respondent herein. In view of the same, he submits that the respondent herein is not entitled for any compassionate appointment on account of the death of the appellants' employee Mr. Panuganti Satish Babu. 4. On the other hand, the learned Senior respondent herein submits that document dated 14.03.2017. i 09.05.2003 but the Counsel appearing for the even according to the above said adoption It is clear that the adoption took place on same was not formalized dispute about the mentioning of the documents/ certificates pertaining to the series of material papers along with the as per law. But he does not name of the natural father in the respondent herein which are filed in writ appeal. If the date of adoption i as 09.05.2003, the respondent herein IS taken into consideration within the required age limit for adoption would be as per law. But he admits that there no relevant material/ proof filed along with the writ petition material papers IS or before the authorities respondent herein documents before the authorities concerned. If an opportunity is given, the may makes an effort to produce the necessary concerned. 5. In view of the above said facts and circumstances and upon consideration of the rival submissions made ex facie, the adoption of the respondent herein said to have been dated 09.05.2003 either in the writ petition or in the writ appeal. Even according to the above said registered adoption deed dated 14.03.2017 if it is the date taken into consideration atleast to give affect the adoption of the respondent herein as the adopted son, he wouid become age barred and suffers from disqualificatio n adoption; I^kdmittediy, the documents/ certificates/ educational for the certificates of the respondent herein consistently show the name of the natural father in the column of father’s name by mentioning it as “Panuganti Sai Ramesh Babu”. No where the adoptive father’ s name was mentioned in any of the documents pertaining to the respondent herein. Admittedly the service records of the deceased employee does not show the name of the respondent herein atleast as nominee irrespective of the establishment of adoption as he is none other than the brother’s son of the deceased employee. For the foregoing reasons it can be inferred safely that it is only an attempt to establish adoption as an afterthought to claim the compassionate appointment on the ground of death of the employee in service which cannot be encouraged and entertained. Hence, cannot compel the appellant authorities to consider the respondent herein for any compassionate appointment. this court case of the 5 A 6. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.10.2024 in W.P.No. 13953 of 2021. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// fb SECT! OFFICER To, 1. Two CCs to GP for Services I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh aT- Amaravati [OUT] 2. One CC to Sri Ponnada Sree Vyas, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr HIGH COURT CNR DATED:06/01/2025 I' 2 9 JAN 2C?') ^ . Current Section . ^ JUDGMENT 1 WA.No.1059 of 2024 Co ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS