The petitioner, sought to quash the circular and order that revoked his Earthquake Affected Person Certificate, which was crucial for his selection as a Police Constable (Armed). The certificate was initially issued based on his adoption, which was later deemed invalid due to non-compliance with the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, particularly concerning age and relation requirements. The court upheld the revocation of the certificate and dismissed the petition.

1. Appearances and Proceedings

• Mr. S.R. Yadav-Lonikar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, represents Respondents Nos. 1 to 4.
• Rule made returnable forthwith. Matter heard at admission stage with consent from both sides.

2. Petitioner’s Prayers

• Quash the circular dated 31.05.2023 and the order dated 06.06.2024 cancelling the Earthquake Affected Person Certificate.
• Direct respondent No. 4 to issue an appointment order to the Petitioner for the post of Police Constable (Armed).

3. Petitioner’s Background

• Biological son of Shri Shankar Ramu Pawar and Sau. Gunbai Shankar Pawar.
• Adopted by Shri Lalu Shivram Jadhav and Sau. Narsabai Lalu Jadhav on 18-04-2022.
• Adoption ceremony followed Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
• Filed a suit for recognition as adopted son, which was settled in National Lok Adalat.
• Issued a certificate of Earthquake Affected Person based on adoption and compromise decree.

4. Petitioner's Selection and Subsequent Issues

• Applied for the post of Police Constable (Armed) under the Earthquake Affected Persons category.
• Selected and declared medically fit.
• Certificate of Earthquake Affected Person was later revoked by Respondent No. 3, Tahsildar, due to verification issues.

5. Arguments by Petitioner's Counsel

• Circular dated 31.05.2023 issued by Respondent No. 2 is contrary to law and without jurisdiction.
• Adoption and compromise decree are legally binding, and Respondent No. 3 has no authority to revoke the certificate.
• Referenced judicial pronouncements supporting the Petitioner’s claims.

6. Arguments by Respondent’s Counsel

• Adoption deed is invalid as the Petitioner was more than 15 years old at the time of adoption, contrary to Sec. 10(iv) of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
• Adoption proceedings were suspiciously swift, raising doubts about their legitimacy.
• Impugned order of revocation is legal and appropriate.

7. Findings and Analysis

• Petitioner’s adoption was invalid due to age (over 15 years) and lack of blood relation with adoptive parents.
• Sections 10 and 11 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, were discussed.
• Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the age limit and conditions for valid adoption were referenced.

8. Conclusion

• Respondent No. 3, Tahsildar's order revoking the certificate is upheld due to non-compliance with legal provisions for adoption.
• Petitioner's application for appointment based on the revoked certificate stands affected.