HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1335 of 2024 Smt. Pranita Rani ….....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Vinod Nautiyal, Advocate for the petitioner through video conferencing. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional C.S.C. for the State/respondents. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks session extension from 01.04.2024 to 31.03.2025. 2. It is a case of the petitioner that she is Assistant Teacher, Hindi and has been working in the Government Ashram Paddhati Intermediate College, Haripur Kalsi, District Dehradun (“the College”). On 28.02.2024, she moved an application to the respondent no.4, the Principal of the College for giving benefit of education session. She was not given the benefit of education session. By the impugned order dated 19.06.2024, the respondent no.3, Director, Janjati Kalyan rejected the request of the petitioner for session extension on the ground that her application has not been received for session extension through Principal of that College. It is impugned. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in fact, in many other cases, session extension benefit was granted by the respondent no.3 without the applications having been forwarded by the Principal. Upon hearing, on 26.05.2025, this Court passed the following order:- “It is argued that it has been rejected on the wrong ground that the recommendation of the Principal has not reached to the Directorate. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in some cases, without recommendation having been received, such session benefit has been given. He would refer to Annexure 7 to the writ petition. Learned State Counsel would submit that that fresh order would be passed on the admissibility of the petitioner for session extension, in accordance with the existing Government Orders. He would submit that such order may be passed within a week. List on 04.03.2025.” 5. Today when the matter was taken up, learned State counsel would submit that a fresh order dated 03.03.2025 has been filed by the respondent no.3, Director, Janjati Kalyan and the request of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that her Annual Confidential Remarks for the year 2023-24 was not satisfactory and her and her integrity is doubtful. 6 The order dated 03.03.2025 of the respondent no.3, the Director, Janjati Kalyan is placed for the perusal of the Court. Let it be taken on record. 3 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that first rejection was done by the impugned order dated 19.06.2024 on the ground that the application of the petitioner has not been forwarded by the Principal which was not tenable because in many other cases such matters were considered by the respondent no.3, the Director, Janjati Kalyan. It is argued that second rejection is also invalid because the respondent no.3, the Director, Janjati Kalyan is changing the stance. First, the prayer of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that her application was not forwarded by the Principal of the College and now, another stance has been taken that the petitioner is not entitled to the education sessions benefit because her Annual Confidential Remarks for the year 2023-24 is unsatisfactory and her integrity is doubtful. It is argued that it may not be a ground to reject the benefit of education session because the Annual Confidential for the year 2023-24 were never communicated to the petitioner. They were given by the respondent no.4, the Principal against whom the petitioner has reported the matter to the higher authorities. It is argued that un-communicated Annual Confidential Remarks cannot be taken into consideration against the petitioner. 8. Learned State counsel, under instructions, admits that the Annual Confidential Remarks for the year 2023-24 were never communicated to the petitioner. 4 9. The Court wanted to know from the learned State counsel as to whether such remarks which were not communicated can be taken against the consideration against the employee? The answer is no. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that two days salary of the petitioner is also withheld by the respondents. To it, learned State counsel would submit that two days salary has already been paid to the petitioner. 11. The grounds for rejection as taken in the impugned communication dated 19.06.2024 and in the communication that is presented before the Court today dated 03.03.2025 of the respondent no.3, the Director Janjati Kalyan for rejection of session extension application of the petitioner are not valid grounds. Therefore, both these orders are set aside. 12. The respondent no.3, the Director, Janjati Kalyan is directed to pass afresh order on the session extension application of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a week from today. 13. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 11.03.2025 Jitendra