Executive Grievance Committees for Educational Staff Upheld as Valid Administrative Forums Pending Statutory Incorporation

Several writ petitions were filed by educational institutions and staff challenging various orders passed by the Education Department (e.g., denial of staff recognition, transfer rejections, and Shalarath ID issues).

These subjects were explicitly covered by a Grievance Redressal Committee/Appellate Authority mechanism established under a Government Resolution (GR) dated 27-03-2024.

Petitioners bypassed this committee, arguing that a later coordinate Division Bench in Shri Agrasen Shikshan Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra (2024) had doubted the validity of the GR and referred the matter to a Larger Bench.

The procedural history includes the High Court’s previous directions in Nitin Bhika Tadge v. State of Maharashtra (2024) to create such a forum to reduce unnecessary litigation.

1. Whether the Grievance Redressal Committee/Appellate Authority constituted under the GR dated 27-03-2024 remains a valid and mandatory forum during the pendency of a reference to a Larger Bench

2. Whether the State Government is competent under Article 162 of the Constitution to create such an executive grievance redressal mechanism for matters governed by the M.E.P.S. Act

The Court primarily applied the doctrine established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, holding that High Courts must decide matters based on the law as it stands, and a mere reference to a Larger Bench does not allow a Court to ignore existing binding precedents.

It relied on Article 162 of the Constitution of India regarding the executive power of the State, noting that the State may issue administrative instructions on matters where the legislature has the power to make laws, provided they do not conflict with existing law.

The principles from Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab and Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh were applied to affirm that executive power encompasses the residue of governmental functions.

The Court reasoned that until the Larger Bench answers the reference, the law laid down in Komal v. State of Maharashtra, which upheld the validity of the GR, remains binding.

The Court observed that the Grievance Committee does not exercise quasi-judicial powers or exclude the jurisdiction of Civil Courts; rather, it serves as an administrative/supervisory mechanism to ensure Education Officers follow settled judicial pronouncements and reduce the burden of "petty" litigation.

The Court criticized the "inconsistent and dual stand" of counsel who initially assisted in drafting the GR and then challenged it.

The Court determined that the committee is a tool for the effective implementation of the M.E.P.S. Act and Rules, not a replacement for them.

To increase efficacy, the Court suggested the State give the mechanism statutory backing but maintained its current operation as a court-mandated guideline.

The petitions were disposed of with directions to the petitioners to approach the Committee within six weeks.

The Court specifically ordered the State to: (i) Treat the GR mechanism as court-issued guidelines pending legislative action; (ii) Constitute an additional State-level Grievance Committee headed by the Secretary of Education for matters involving the Commissioner (Education); and (iii) Scrutinize the inaction of officials under the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfer and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005.