Govind Mathur, J. - (1.) This appeal is barred by limitation from 265 days. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he is having no objection in getting the delay in filing the appeal condoned. Accordingly, the application preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed. The delay of 265 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
(2.) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard on merits.
(3.) In brief, facts of the case are that the respondent petitioner Mr. Shyam Lal Purohit claimed appointment as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 being adopted son of Mr. Heera Lal Purohit, who died while in service on 25.05.2008. The appellant-respondents denied him appointment on the count that in his mark-sheet relating to 8th Standard Examination, he has been shown as son of Mr. Mangi Lal Purohit, his original father. It is also stated that in the year 1997-98, the age of respondent-petitioner Mr. Shyam Lal Purohit was more than 15 years, therefore, subsequent thereto, he could have not been adopted as per the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act of 1956'). Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent-petitioner preferred a petition for writ, that came to be accepted by the order dated 23.05.2013 in light of the law laid down in Keshar Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7356/2012] decided on 10.05.2013. The case aforesaid was decided in light of a Single Bench judgment of this court in Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6066/2007] dated 16.05.2012 holding as under:- "After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the firm opinion that no executive or administrative authority like the District Education Officer can exercise the jurisdiction to adjudicate or to give opinion with regard to legality of the document. The authority can assess the genuineness of the document if it appears to be forged; but, in this case, the District Education Officer (Secondary), Bikaner exceeded his jurisdiction to assess the validity of adoption-deed which is not permissible in law. For this reason alone, the communication dated 12.07.2007 deserves to be quashed. In addition to the above reason, the other reason is also there with regard to assertion made by the said authority to deny appointment. In the impugned communication, it is observed by the District Education Officer (Secondary), Bikaner that the petitioner is only son of his natural parents but this fact is not correct. As per the reply filed by the respondents itself, in which, they accepted that the natural parents of the petitioner are having two issues daughter Kavita and petitioner Pankaj. Therefore, on this ground also denial by the respondents cannot be sustained. With regard to registration of the adoption-deed, it is very strange that no such provision is there in the Act of 1956 that adoption-deed must be registered one for its being a valid adoption-deed. Adoption can be made under customs, therefore, the adoption-deed filed by the petitioner cannot be treated to be unregistered document for the purpose of denial of appointment on compassionate ground. Wife of late Shiv Prakash Swami herself deposed in the affidavit that during the life-time of her husband late Shiv Prakash Swami they adopted the petitioner as their son.";