Pending larger bench reference, Government Resolution establishing education grievance committees remains valid and binding administrative law.

The petitioners, comprising various educational institutions and teaching/non-teaching staff, filed a bunch of writ petitions challenging orders passed by Education Department authorities regarding approvals, transfers, and service benefits

The State of Maharashtra had issued a Government Resolution (GR) dated 27-03-2024 constituting Grievance Redressal Committees/Appellate Authorities to handle such recurring complaints following directions in Nitin Bhika Tadge v. State of Maharashtra

However, a subsequent Division Bench in Shri Agrasen Shikshan Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra doubted the State’s executive power to create such a forum and referred the matter to a Larger Bench

Consequently, many litigants bypassed the Committee, citing the pending reference

Union Territory 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

Article 162 of the Constitution of India regarding the executive power of the State, as interpreted in Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Naraindas Indurkhya v. State of M.P., which establishes that the State can issue administrative instructions on matters within its legislative competence where no specific enactment exists

Maharashtra Private School Employees (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act (M.E.P.S. Act), 1977 and Rules, 1981

The Court reasoned that under the doctrine of stare decisis, the validity of the GR dated 27-03-2024 remains upheld by the Division Bench in Komal v. State of Maharashtra until the Larger Bench decides otherwise

The Court observed that the Education Department frequently ignores settled legal positions, leading to "avoidable" and "unwarranted" litigation involving thousands of approval and pension disputes

It clarified that the Grievance Committees are not exercising quasi-judicial powers or excluding the jurisdiction of Civil Courts, but are administrative forums designed to ensure fair play and effective implementation of the M.E.P.S. Act

The Court critiqued the conduct of a counsel who previously supported the GR but later challenged it, emphasizing the need for consistency in judicial proceedings

To enhance the GR’s efficacy, the Court determined that while the reference is pending, the mechanism should be treated as Court-issued guidelines

The Court directed the State to: (i) treat the GR mechanism as directions/guidelines issued by the Court [p. 26 / para. 28(i)]; (ii) constitute an additional State-level Committee headed by the Secretary of Education to hear grievances against decisions by the Commissioner of Education [p. 27 / para. 28(ii)]; and (iii) consider providing statutory backing to these committees by amending the M.E.P.S. Act [p. 25 / para. 26]. The petitioners were granted six weeks to approach the Grievance Redressal Committee/Appellate forum, and the writ petitions were disposed of