- (1.) PETITIONER claims compassionate appointment after the death of Smt. Urmila Devi working on the post of Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife, contending that he is her adopted son, but the said claim has been rejected by Chief Medical Officer, Mirzapur by means of impugned order dated 25.7.2013 stating that petitioner did not produce any document to show that he is adopted son of deceased employee. Learned counsel for petitioner during the course of argument admitted that there does not appear to be executed any adoption deed and also could not show as to how and in what manner the adoption took place in accordance with procedure of adoption prescribed in Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1956").
(2.) SECTION 16 of Act, 1956, as it originally was, 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 this Act unless and until it is disproved." Vide Section 35 of U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1976, Section Section 16 of Act, 1956 was amended with effect from 1.1.1977 as under: "Renumber section 16 as sub -section (1) thereof and after sub -section (1) as so renumbered, the following sub -section (2) shall be inserted, namely: - (2) In case of an adoption made on or after the 1st day of January, 1977 no court in Uttar Pradesh shall accept any evidence in proof of the giving and taking of the child in adoption, except a document recording an adoption, made and signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption and registered under any law for the time being in force; Provided that secondary evidence of such document shall be admitted in the circumstances and the manner laid down in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872." (emphasis added)
(3.) PETITIONER has shown his age 24 years at the time of filing this writ petition and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, his adoption could have taken place before 1.1.1977. Therefore, in view of above requirement of law and considering the fact that even before this Court, no document has been placed to establish the claim of petitioner with respect to his alleged adoption by the deceased employee, and, on the contrary, learned counsel for petitioner admits there does not appear to be executed any registered adoption deed, I do not find any infirmity, legal or otherwise, in the order impugned in this writ petition warranting interference.;