Executive Power Under Article 162 Validates Grievance Committees Pending Legislative Action and Statutory Amendments.

Several petitioners, including educational institutions and teaching/non-teaching staff, filed writ petitions challenging orders passed by various Education Department authorities regarding approvals, transfers, and payroll issues

The State Government had issued a Government Resolution (GR) on 27-03-2024, creating a Grievance Redressal Committee/Appellate Authority to handle 15 specific categories of disputes not covered under Section 9 of the MEPS Act

However, the petitioners bypassed this mechanism, citing a subsequent coordinate Bench decision (Shri Agrasen Shikshan Sanstha v. State) which referred the validity of the GR to a Larger Bench

1. Whether High Courts must continue to apply a law/GR even if its validity has been referred to a Larger Bench

2. Whether the Grievance Redressal Committee constituted under the GR dated 27-03-2024 is a valid exercise of the State's executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution

The Court primarily relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in UT of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, which mandates that High Courts must decide matters based on the law as it stands, even if a reference to a Larger Bench is pending

Regarding executive power, the Court applied Article 162 of the Constitution, which allows the State to issue administrative directions on subjects within its legislative competence if no enactment occupies the field, as established in Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P. and Naraindas Indurkhya v. State of M.P.

It also considered the MEPS Act, 1977, and MEPS Rules, 1981, regarding the tripartite relationship between employees, management, and the State

The Court reasoned that until the Larger Bench answers the reference, the previous decisions in Nitin Bhika Tadge v. State and Komal v. State, which upheld the GR’s validity, remain binding law

The Court found that the GR does not create a quasi-judicial body or violate the separation of powers; rather, it provides an "executive forum" to ensure administrative efficiency and compliance with settled judicial pronouncements

The Court emphasized that the mechanism addresses "petty matters" (e.g., Shalarath ID, personal recognition) that do not fall under the statutory jurisdiction of the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act

The Court concluded that the State has the executive competence under Article 162 to create such grievance redressal mechanisms to regulate fields not occupied by legislation