Executive Grievance Committees for Education Disputes Valid Pending Legislative Action and Reference to Larger Bench

These consolidated Writ Petitions were filed by educational institutions and staff challenging various orders of the Education Department (e.g., denial of personal recognition, transfer rejections, Shalarath ID issues).

The State Government had issued a Government Resolution (GR) dated 27-03-2024, pursuant to directions in Nitin Bhika Tadge v. State of Maharashtra, establishing a Grievance Redressal Committee/Appellate Authority to handle such "petty matters".

However, the petitioners bypassed this forum, citing a pending reference to a Larger Bench in Shri Agrasen Shikshan Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra, which questioned whether such committees could be constituted via executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Grievance Redressal Committee/Appellate Authority constituted under the GR dated 27-03-2024 remains valid and functional pending a reference to a Larger Bench

2. Whether the State Government, under Article 162, has the authority to create administrative forums to streamline grievances not covered by Section 9 of the MEPS Act

High Courts must decide matters based on the law as it stands, even if a coordinate Bench has doubted it or referred it to a Larger Bench.

Article 162 of the Constitution regarding the executive power of the State, which extends to all matters upon which the State Legislature can legislate, provided it does not contravene existing law.

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 ('MEPS Act') and Rules, noting that executive instructions can supplement legislation to ensure effective administration where the Act is silent.

The Court reasoned that under the Ladakh principle, the validity of the GR dated 27-03-2024—previously upheld in Komal v. State of Maharashtra—must be followed despite the pending reference in Agrasen Shikshan Sanstha.

The Court observed that the Education Department frequently ignored settled judicial pronouncements, leading to avoidable "petty" litigation in the High Court.

It clarified that the Grievance Redressal Committees are executive forums exercising administrative/supervisory functions rather than quasi-judicial powers, and thus do not violate the separation of powers or Article 223-A/B.

The Court found that the GR does not exclude the jurisdiction of Courts but provides an internal mechanism for fair play and timely decision-making.

To increase efficacy, the Court suggested that this mechanism needs statutory backing through amendments to the MEPS Act.

The Court directed the State to constitute an additional State-level Grievance Redressal Committee headed by the Secretary of the Education Department to hear grievances against decisions made by the Commissioner (Education).

The petitioners were relegated to the Grievance Redressal Committee to be approached within six weeks.

The petitions were disposed of with a request to the State to consider amending Section 9 of the MEPS Act to allow the School Tribunal to eventually handle these matters.