State Grievance Redressal Mechanism for Educational Staff Remains Operative and Binding Pending Larger Bench Reference

Multiple writ petitions were filed by educational institutions and staff challenging various orders of the Maharashtra Education Department regarding teacher approvals, transfers, and service benefits.

The State Government had issued a Government Resolution (GR) dated 27-03-2024, creating a Grievance Redressal Committee/Appellate Authority to handle such "petty" disputes and reduce High Court litigation.

Petitioners approached the High Court because a coordinate Bench in Shri Agrasen Shikshan Sanstha had recently referred the question of the GR’s validity under Article 162 to a Larger Bench.

The procedural history includes a prior Division Bench ruling in Komal v. State of Maharashtra (25-10-2024), which had upheld the GR.

1. Whether the Grievance Redressal Committee constituted under the GR dated 27-03-2024 remains a valid alternative forum for petitioners while a reference to a Larger Bench is pending.

2. Whether the State Government has the executive competence under Article 162 of the Constitution to create such an administrative grievance mechanism.

The Court applied the principle from Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, holding that High Courts must decide matters based on the law as it stands, regardless of a pending reference to a Larger Bench.

The Court relied on Nitin Bhika Tadge v. State of Maharashtra, which emphasized the need for an administrative mechanism to prevent needless litigation caused by education officials ignoring settled law.

The court further cited Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P. and Naraindas Indurkhya v. State of M.P., establishing that under Article 162, the executive power of the State is co-extensive with its legislative power and can be used to issue administrative instructions where no specific enactment covers the field.

The Court reasoned that until the Larger Bench answers the reference, the law established in Nitin Tadge and Komal—which upheld the GR—remains binding.

The Court observed that the Education Department’s repeated failure to follow judicial precedents necessitates this administrative forum to alleviate the burden on the judiciary and school managements.

It clarified that the Committee exercises administrative/supervisory functions, not quasi-judicial ones, and thus does not violate the separation of powers or overlap with the MEPS Act’s statutory remedies.

The Court also deprecated the conduct of counsel who supported the GR's creation in one case but challenged it in another.

The Court directed the State to: (1) constitute an additional State-level Grievance Committee headed by the Education Secretary; (2) examine official delays under the Transfer and Prevention of Delay Act, 2005; and (3) consider making this mechanism statutory by amending Section 9 of the MEPS Act. The writ petitions were disposed of, relegating the petitioners to the Grievance Redressal Committee.