Grievance Redressal Committees established via executive order are valid administrative forums pending legislative statutory incorporation.

Across several Writ Petitions, educational institutions and staff challenged orders passed by officials of the Education Department regarding approvals, transfers, and service benefits.

The State established a Grievance Redressal Committee/Appellate Authority via Government Resolution (GR) dated 27.03.2024 to handle such recurring administrative complaints.

However, a later coordinate bench in Shri Agrasen Shikshan Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra (19.12.2024) doubted the executive's power to create such a forum and referred the matter to a Larger Bench.

Consequently, petitioners approached the High Court directly, questioning whether they must exhaust the GR-mandated remedy while the reference is pending.

1. Whether the Grievance Redressal Committee constituted under the Government Resolution remains a valid alternative remedy while a reference challenging its validity is pending before a Larger Bench.

2. Whether the State Government, in exercise of its executive powers under Article 162 of the Constitution, can validly create a mechanism for administrative grievance redressal where statutory rules are silent on the hierarchy of such decision-making.

The court primarily applied the doctrine of stare decisis as interpreted in Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (2024), which mandates that High Courts must follow existing law and valid precedents even if a reference to a larger bench is pending.

It relied on Article 162 of the Constitution regarding the State’s executive power, noting that the State may issue administrative instructions where no enactment covers a particular aspect, as held in Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P. and Naraindas Indurkhya v. State of M.P.

The court also referenced the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (M.E.P.S. Act), noting that the GR covers subjects (e.g., Shalarath ID, personal recognition) not explicitly governed by Section 9 of said Act.

The Court reasoned that since the validity of the GR dated 27.03.2024 had already been upheld by a Division Bench in Komal v. State of Maharashtra (25.10.2024), that judgment constitutes "the law as it stands" under the Ladakh principle.

The Court observed that the M.E.P.S. Rules define duties but lack a mechanism to address delays or failures by officials to apply settled law.

It clarified that the Committee is an administrative/executive forum, not a quasi-judicial one, and therefore does not violate the separation of powers or Article 223-A/B.

The Court criticized the "dual stand" of counsel who initially assisted in drafting the GR but later challenged it, emphasizing that the mechanism was intended to reduce "avoidable litigation" caused by the Education Department's persistent ignorance of judicial pronouncements.

The Court further ordered: (i) the GR mechanism shall be treated as Court-issued guidelines until statutory amendments are made; (ii) the State must constitute an additional State-level Committee headed by the Education Secretary to hear grievances against decisions of the Commissioner (Education); and (iii) the Committees must examine official delays under the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfer and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005. The petitions were disposed of with a request to the State to grant the mechanism statutory backing via the M.E.P.S. Act.