State Executive May Constitute Grievance Redressal Committees to Adjudicate Educational Service Disputes Pending Judicial Reference

Several writ petitions were filed by educational institutions and employees challenging orders passed by various officials of the Maharashtra Education Department regarding service matters like approvals, transfers, and Shalarath IDs.

The State had issued a Government Resolution (GR) dated 27-03-2024 constituting a Grievance Redressal Committee/Appellate Authority to handle these recurring issues.

A subsequent coordinate Bench in Shri Agrasen Shikshan Sanstha v. State had doubted the validity of this GR and referred the matter to a Larger Bench, questioning if such a forum could be created via executive power under Article 162.

The High Court also noted the inconsistent conduct of a counsel who previously supported the GR but later challenged it.

1. Whether the Grievance Redressal Committee constituted under the GR dated 27-03-2024 stands vitiated or suspended pending a reference to a Larger Bench.

2. Whether the State Government has the executive competence under Article 162 to create an administrative grievance mechanism for matters not explicitly covered by statutory appeals.

The principle of stare decisis as clarified in Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, which mandates that High Courts must follow existing law/precedents even if a reference to a Larger Bench is pending.

Article 162 of the Constitution of India regarding the extent of executive power, noting that the executive can issue administrative instructions on any matter within the legislature's competence provided it does not conflict with existing law [Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P.].

Maharashtra Private School Employees (Conditions of Service) Regulation (MEPS) Act, 1977 and Rules, 1981, specifically noting that Section 9 provides for limited statutory appeals to the School Tribunal.

The court reasoned that until the Larger Bench decides otherwise, the validity of the GR remains upheld by the previous Division Bench decision in Komal v. State of Maharashtra.

The Court found that the Grievance Committee is an administrative/executive forum, not a quasi-judicial body, as it lacks the "trappings of a court" such as the power to summon witnesses or administer oaths.

It serves to provide a "supervisory" check on subordinate officers who frequently ignore settled judicial pronouncements, thereby reducing avoidable litigation.

The Court emphasized that the State is charged with the duty of general administration; thus, creating a mechanism to ensure officials perform their duties (like granting salary IDs or approving transfers) falls within the "residue of governmental functions" under Article 162.

The petitions were disposed of with directions: (i) the mechanism shall operate as guidelines issued by the Court; (ii) the State must constitute an additional State-level Committee headed by the Secretary of Education to handle grievances against decisions by the Commissioner; (iii) the Committee must scrutinize official delays; and (iv) the State was requested to consider giving this mechanism statutory backing. Petitioners were directed to approach the Grievance Committees within six weeks.