HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 723 of 2023 (S/S) Smt. Prabhawati Devi ….......Petitioner Vs. Rajya Pariyojna Nideshak, Samagra Siksha, Uttarakhand and others …..... Respondents Present : Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 5. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to Communication dated 17.04.2023 of the respondent no.4/Chief Education Officer, District Udham Singh Nagar, by which, on retirement of the petitioner the charge of the Warden, it was directed that the charge of Warden be handed over to some other person; the challenge is also made to the consequential communication dated 18.04.2023, passed by the respondent no.5/the Deputy Education Officer, Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The petitioner was working as a Warden in Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, Hostel Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. She was retired. She was given two 2 years’ extension. After expiry of the period of extension, by the impugned communication dated 17.04.2023, the respondent no.4 directed that the charge of Warden may be handed over to Smt. Renu, a Teacher in the Government Higher Secondary School, Brakheda, Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Thereafter, consequential communication was made on 18.04.2023, by the respondent no.5/the Deputy Education Officer, Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner would still be considered for her extension in view of Government Order dated 19.02.2018. He would submit that the petitioner may be granted extension in view of the Government Order dated 19.02.2018. 5. In fact, Government Order dated 19.02.2018, which has been filed as Annexure No.1 to the supplementary affidavit by the petitioner is with regard to selection process of the Wardens in the Hostels. It does not speak of any extension. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that she has already been granted two years extension on her retirement. No Government Order, Rules or Regulation has been placed for perusal of the Court, 3 which may indicate that even after two years extension, further extension may be considered. Therefore, there is no merit in the case. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 6. The petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 30.06.2025 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA Digitally signed by SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd504686df4d1afc60f54a2 87831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC450A84B515A087C AEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA Date: 2025.07.01 18:17:36 +05'30'