# Ankit Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1911 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-04-06 - **Case number:** Writ A No. 29002 of 2019 - **Bench:** Karunesh Singh Pawar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ankit-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54443 - **Pages:** 5 ## Text 4 All. Ankit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1911 precision, clarity and exactitude reflected in the legal research and analysis submitted by them, demonstrates commendable attention to detail. The Court acknowledges their contribution in aiding the adjudication of the matter. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 1911 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 06.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Writ A No. 29002 of 2019 Ankit Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Issue(s) for consideration Whether respondents can deprive the petitioner of his claim on compassionate appointment merely on the ground that on the date of registration of the adoption deed, the petitioner was a major? Headnotes A. Service Law - Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956: Section 16 - Presumption as to registered documents relating to adoption - It is not open to the respondents to deprive the petitioner for his claim on compassionate appointment merely on the ground that on the date of registration of the adoption deed, i.e., 15.05.2014, the petitioner was a major. The adoption deed on record clearly mentions that the adoption ceremony had taken place on the eve of Basant Panchami in the year 1997, when the petitioner was about six years old. (Para 11) Thus, considering the provisions of the Act of 1956, including Section 16 which provides for presumption as to registered documents relating to adoption, the contention of the respondents that the adoption is invalid on account of the petitioner being a major on the date of registration is erroneous and cannot be a ground to deprive the petitioner of his claim for compassionate appointment on account of the demise of his adoptive mother, Smt. Sharda Devi, who was admittedly working as a Basic Health Worker under respondent No. 4. (Para 12) Writ petition disposed of. (E-4) Case Law Cited 1. Daryao Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 1457 (Para 9) 2. Prema Gopal Vs. Central Adoption Resource Authority & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 14886 of 2024, decided on 29.01.2025 (Para 10) 3. Union of India and Another Vs. Sukhpreet Kaur and Another, Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, CWP No. 28074 of 2024, decided on 13.02.2025 (Para 10) List of Acts Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. List of Keywords service, dying-in-harness, compassionate, appointment, res judicata, 1912 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Appearances for Parties For Petitioner(s) Prahlad Maurya, Alok Kr. Misra, Anam Som Ratna Maurya, Neelam Kumari, Pawan Kumar Upadhyay, Ram Ji Trivedi, Ram Phal, Shraddha Tripathi For Respondent(s) C.S.C. (Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.) 1.Heard Mrs. Shraddha Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional C.S.C. appearing for the State-respondents. 2.By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent No. 2 to consider his case for appointment under the Dying-inHarness Rules in accordance with the order dated 04.07.2018 passed by the Inspector General (Stamp & Registration), Lucknow. 3.Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 19158 (S/S) of 2017 (Ankit Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Ors.), which was decided vide judgment and order dated 18.09.2017, wherein a direction was issued to the Inspector General (Registration & Stamps) to examine the issue. 4.It is submitted that in compliance of the aforesaid order, the Inspector General (Registration & Stamps), vide order dated 04.07.2018, has upheld the validity of the adoption deed of the petitioner. Thus, it is prayed that respondent No. 2 be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 5.Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contention and submitted that on the date of registration of the adoption deed, i.e., 15.05.2014, the petitioner was a major and, therefore, his case could not be considered under the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1956"). 6.Perused the record. 7.Although, considering the peculiar circumstances under which the petitioner's adoption was not in accordance with law, the direction for compassionate appointment was earlier refused, however, a direction was issued to the Inspector General (Registration & Stamps) to examine the issue. Relevant paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order dated 18.09.2017 are extracted hereinbelow:- "3. Since the petitioner's adoption is not in accordance with law, as such no direction can be issued for grant of compassionate appointment, as is prayed in this matter. The order of Deputy Director (Administration) dated 21st June, 2017, therefore, does not require any interference and the challenge laid to the order fails. 4. A direction, however, is issued to the I.G. (Registration & Stamps) to examine the issue as to how a document of 1997 has been entertained for registration in 2014, without any 4 All. Ankit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1913 orders passed by the competent court and appropriate steps, as may be required to be drawn to deal with the situation, shall be undertaken, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Learned Standing Counsel is directed to communicate this order to the I.G. (Registration & Stamps), within a week from today." 8.In compliance of the order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the Court earlier, the Inspector General (Registration & Stamps), vide order dated 04.07.2018, has upheld the validity of the adoption deed. The said order is on record as Annexure No. 18 to the petition. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while recalling the earlier order dated 11.03.2024 vide order dated 21.08.2025, has also noticed that the adoption deed has been held to be valid by the Inspector General (Registration & Stamps). 9. It has further been observed that since the present petition has been filed in terms of the order dated 04.07.2018, it constitutes a fresh cause of action and, therefore, the principle of res judicata would not apply, as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Daryao vs. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 1457. 10.During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prema Gopal vs. Central Adoption Resource Authority & Ors. (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 14886 of 2024, decided on 29.01.2025). Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Union of India and Another vs. Sukhpreet Kaur and Another (CWP No. 28074 of 2024, decided on 13.02.2025), wherein it has been held that once an adoption deed is registered, it would be presumbed that a valid adoption has taken place with of course the right of rebuttal. Relevant paragraphs are extracted hereinbelow:- "7. Once an adoption-deed is registered, it would be presumed that a valid adoption has taken place with, of course, the right of rebuttal. The provisions regarding such presumption are provided under Section 16 of the Act. The contention of the petitioners that the adoption of respondent no. 1 not being in accordance with law on the ground that she has attained the age of majority on the day of the registration of the adoption-deed, is also erroneous. The date of birth of the applicant-respondent no. 1 (Sukhpreet Kaur) is 23.03.1997. The registered adoption-deed reflects that the adoption had taken place on 12.01.2010 but the registration could not take place. It is a matter of common knowledge that so far as the School Education Boards are concerned, they would only recognize actual parents of a child for being mentioned in the certificate and the names of father and mother would change only on the presentation of a registered adoption-deed. In June, 2013, there was no registered adoption-deed and, therefore, it is natural that in the Punjab School Education Board Certificate, the names of original parents, instead of adoptive parents, of the applicant-respondent no. 1 were mentioned. The same would, therefore, not be a reason to deprive her claim for compassionate appointment on account of demise of her adoptive father Vijay Kumar, who was, admittedly, an employee of the Railways and had died while in service. 9. It may be pertinent to note that in a recent judgment passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 14886 of 2024 Prema Gopal v. Central Adoption Resource Authority dated 29.01.2025, the Apex Court considered the aspect with regard to relating back and held as under:? 1914 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES "Learned counsel submitted that although the adoption of twin children in the instant case took place on the 09.01.2020, the Deed of Adoption was subsequently registered on 19.09.2022. He submitted that the said Deed of Adoption would relate back to 09.01.2020, on which date the religious ceremonies were performed in the presence of relatives and friends for the formal adoption of the children under the prov.isions of the HAMA, 1956. In the circumstances, Regulation 67 has to be read in a manner relatable to the date of adoption. although The submission of the learned counsel was that Deed of Adoption 19.09.2022 which is subsequent to the was registered on commencement of the Adoption (Amendment) Regulations, 2021, the said Deed of Adoption relates back to the date of adoption being 09.01.2020. In the circumstances, there can be no hurdle in the consideration of the case of the petitioner herein under Regulation 67 of the Regulations, 2022. Therefore, he urged that initially direction may be issued to respondent a no. 3/Collector, and respondent no. 2 as well, for the purpose of consideration of the case under Regulation 67 of the Regulations, 2022. xx xx xx xx x We are prima facie of the view that the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submissions."" 11. In view of the aforesaid, it is not open to the respondents to deprive the petitioner for his claim on compassionate appointment merely on the ground that on the date of registration of the adoption deed, i.e., 15.05.2014, the petitioner was a major. The adoption deed on record clearly mentions that the adoption ceremony had taken place on the eve of Basant Panchami in the year 1997, when the petitioner was about six years old. 12. Thus, considering the provisions of the Act of 1956, including Section 16 which provides for presumption as to registered documents relating to adoption, the contention of the respondents that the adoption is invalid on account of the petitioner being a major on the date of registration is erroneous and cannot be a ground to deprive the petitioner of his claim for compassionate appointment on account of the demise of his adoptive mother, Smt. Sharda Devi, who was admittedly working as a Basic Health Worker under respondent No. 4. 13. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the judgments referred to hereinabove, a writ of mandamus is issued to respondent No. 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules. 14. The petitioner shall submit a fresh representation before respondent No. 2 within a period of two weeks from today. In case such a representation is submitted, the same shall be considered and a decision shall be taken within a further period of four weeks, in accordance with law, for making compassionate appointment. 15. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. ---------- 4 All. Sachin Kumar & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. 1915 (2026) 4 ILRA 1915 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J. Writ A No. 38777 of 2015 Sachin Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents Issue(s) for consideration (a) Whether a disciplinary authority can rely solely on an uncorroborated, opinion-based handwriting report to dismiss an employee, particularly when other primary modes of physical identification are available? (b) Whether an employee's admission regarding the authenticity of an official document legally equates to admitting that the internal findings and conclusions of that document are true, thereby waiving the right to cross-examination? (c) Whether a departmental inquiry fundamentally flawed if the employer suppresses or ignores primary biometric and eyewitness indicators (thumbprints, verified photos, and invigilator testimony) tied to its own verification process? Headnotes A. Service Law - The three petitioners were recruited as Clerks (Assistants) by the State Bank of India (SBI) through a competitive selection process initiated via an advertisement dated 08.08.2009. They successfully cleared the written examination held on 08.11.2009, passed their interviews, and were appointed in late 2010. Following a successful six-month probation period, they were confirmed in service by May 2011. In 20122013, following external complaints alleging fraudulent recruitment, the Bank placed the petitioners under suspension. SBI subsequently issued a charge-sheet on July 11, 2013, accusing them of adopting unfair means and hiring impersonators to take the written examination on their behalf. The Bank's case rested entirely on a report dated 19.11.2012, from a Forensic Science Laboratory handwriting expert, which concluded that the signatures on the written exam call letters did not match the petitioners' genuine signatures. No other departmental witnesses were examined. Based solely on this report, the Regional Manager dismissed the petitioners from service on 17.01.2014, and the Deputy General Manager rejected their subsequent statutory appeal on 11.03.2015. The petitioners moved the High Court to challenge these orders. B.(i) A handwriting expert's report is a document prepared by a specialist, analysing handwriting or documents to help resolve disputes. Its nature as evidence is opinion-based. The opinion of handwriting expert is based on familiarity resulting from frequent observation and experience. The science of handwriting recognition is not a perfected proposition. (Para 11) In disciplinary proceedings, the question to be probed is targeted towards finding as to whether the employee is guilty of misconduct as would merit punishment. It will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, which are sufficient for the employee to be punished. (Para 12)