State Executive Power Upholds Grievance Redressal Committees for Non-Statutory School Disputes Pending Larger Bench Reference

Several writ petitions were filed by educational institutions and staff (teaching and non-teaching) challenging various orders passed by the Education Department concerning approvals, transfers, and service benefits.

The State Government had issued a Government Resolution (GR) dated 27-03-2024, constituting a Grievance Redressal Committee/Appellate Authority to handle such "petty" administrative disputes that were clogging the High Court.

A subsequent coordinate Division Bench in Shri Agrasen Shikshan Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra (2024) doubted the validity of this GR and referred the matter to a Larger Bench, questioning whether such a committee could be created under the State's executive powers under Article 162 of the Constitution.

Petitioners sought judicial intervention despite the existence of the GR mechanism.

1. Whether the High Court should decide matters based on existing law or await the outcome of a reference made to a Larger Bench by a coordinate Bench.

2. Whether the Grievance Redressal Committee constituted under the GR dated 27-03-2024 remains a valid and functional forum pending the Larger Bench decision.

3. Whether the State Government has the competence under Article 162 to create an administrative grievance mechanism for matters governed by the M.E.P.S. Act and Rules.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, holding that High Courts must decide matters on the basis of law as it stands and not await a reference to a Larger Bench.

Article 162 of the Constitution regarding the executive power of the State, which extends to all matters upon which the State Legislature can make laws, provided it does not conflict with existing statutes.

Principles from Nitin Tadge v. State of Maharashtra and Komal v. State of Maharashtra, which upheld the GR as an administrative (not quasi-judicial) tool to ensure officials follow settled judicial pronouncements.

The Court reasoned that until a Larger Bench overturns it, the law established in Komal’s case—which upheld the 27-03-2024 GR—is binding.

The Court observed that the Education Department frequently ignores settled law, leading to "avoidable" and "needless" litigation; thus, the Grievance Committee is a necessary administrative mechanism to ensure "fair play" and "effective implementation" of the M.E.P.S. Act.

The Court distinguished between "quasi-judicial" functions and the "supervisory jurisdiction" exercised by the Committee, noting that the GR does not exclude the jurisdiction of Civil Courts but merely provides an executive forum for departmental accountability.

Addressing the petitioners' distrust of departmental officials, the Court suggested that for greater efficacy, the mechanism should eventually be granted statutory backing or Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act should be amended.

The petitions were disposed of with directions: (i) the GR mechanism shall operate as guidelines issued by the Court until statutory provisions are enacted; (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) petitioners are relegated to approach the Grievance Committee within six weeks.