[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/2210/2022 on 19 December, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:11418
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPSS/1106/2022
with
WPSS/1217/2022
WPSS/1243/2022
WPSS/1554/2022
WPSS/2209/2022
WPSS/2210/2022
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior
Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vivek Pathak,
Mr. H.S. Mahra, Mr. Akshit Gururani &
Ms. Swati Verma, Advocates for the
petitioner.
2. Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, Deputy
Advocate General for the State of
Uttarakhand.
3. Mr. Yashpal Singh, Advocate,
holding brief of Mr. Neeraj Garg,
Advocate for the UPNL.
4. Since common questions of fact and
law are involved in these petitions,
therefore, they are clubbed together and
are being heard & decided by a common
judgment. However, for the sake of
brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No.
1106 of 2022 alone are being considered
and discussed.
5. Petitioners possessed diploma in
Civil Engineering from recognised
institutions. They were appointed as
Technical Superintendent, now re-
designated as Block Level Project
Engineer under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan,
which is now re-named as Samagra
Shiksha Abhiyan. The said scheme is
introduced by the Central Government
2025:UHC:11418
for universalization of education.
6. According to the petitioners, under
the scheme one Junior Engineer/
Technical Assistant has to be appointed
in each block to look after the
construction activities in schools and as
per the mandate of the Central
Government, petitioners were appointed
in different blocks to look after the
construction work, however, the State
Government has unilaterally changed the
condition of Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan
and in place of one Technical Assistant in
each development block, State has
provided that there shall be only one
Technical Assistant at the district level.
This according to the petitioners,
amounts to undue interference by the
State in the scheme of the Central
Government, especially when the funds
are provided by the Central Government,
for manning the position of Technical
Assistant. It is further contended that
having regard to the huge workload, one
Technical Assistant cannot look after the
construction work undergoing in a
district. Various other issues are raised
by the petitioners in these writ petitions.
7. Learned State Counsel submits that
under the scheme, State is empowered
to make necessary changes to suit the
local needs. He submits that the
impugned Government Order dated
28.10.2020 is as per the authority given
by the Central Government and it cannot
be termed as undue interference with the
scheme of Central Government.
8. The issues raised by the petitioners
in these writ petitions cannot be gone
into by this Court while exercising power
of judicial review. How many Technical
2025:UHC:11418
Assistants would be needed to look after
the work of civil construction in
Government schools has to be
determined by the Central and the State
Government, having regard to the work
load involved.
9. Without expressing any opinion on
the merits of the rival contentions raised
by learned counsel for the parties, this
Court thinks that ends of justice would
be met if petitioners are permitted to
approach the competent authority, by
making representation(s).
10. The writ petitions are disposed of
with liberty to petitioners to make
representation(s) to the State Project
Director, Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan
within two weeks from today.
Representation(s), if made within
stipulated time, shall be dealt with by
passing a reasoned order, as per law,
within six months thereafter. For a
period of seven months or till decision is
taken on the representation, whichever
is later, petitioners shall be permitted to
serve as Technical Assistant, as before.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
19.12.2025
Navin
