State-wide Grievance Redressal Committees for Aided Schools to Maintain Administrative Efficacy Pending Reference to Larger Bench

Several teaching and non-teaching staff and private educational institutions filed writ petitions challenging orders/inactions of the Education Department concerning approvals, transfers, and service benefits.

A Government Resolution (GR) dated 27-03-2024 had established a Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) to handle such "petty matters" to reduce litigation.

A later coordinate bench in Shri Agrasen Shikshan Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra (WP 8322/2023) doubted the State's executive power to create such an appellate forum and referred the matter to a Larger Bench.

The petitioners approached the High Court directly, contending the GRC mechanism was under legal cloud due to this pending reference.

The court primarily applied the principle from 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 regarding the State's executive power, as interpreted in Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P. and Naraindas Indurkhya v. State of M.P., establishing that the State can issue administrative instructions on matters within its legislative competence where no specific enactment covers a particular aspect.

Directions from Nitin Bhika Tadge v. State of Maharashtra, which emphasized the duty of educational authorities to comply with settled judicial pronouncements.

The court reasoned that until the Larger Bench decides otherwise, the validity of the GR dated 27-03-2024, previously upheld in Komal v. State of Maharashtra, remains the law.

The court noted that the GRC is not a "quasi-judicial" body replacing statutory forums but an executive mechanism intended to ensure administrative "fair play" and compliance with settled law.

By scrutinizing the rules under the M.E.P.S. Act, the court found that while rules exist for authorities to take decisions, there is often a gap in addressing inaction or delayed decisions, justifying the GR’s supplementary role.

The court emphasized that the State’s duty is to carry out general administration; so long as the GR does not conflict with existing law, its amplitude remains wide under Article 162.

To address gaps in the current GR (such as approvals requiring the Commissioner's sanction under Rule 41A), the court exercised its jurisdiction to expand the grievance framework.

It directed that the GR of 27-03-2024 shall be treated as directions issued by the Court until statutory provisions are enacted.

Specifically, the Court ordered: (1) the constitution of a State-level GRC headed by the Secretary of Education to hear complaints against higher-level officers [para. 28(ii)]; (2) that GRCs must examine officer delays under the Maharashtra Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 [para. 28(iii)]; and (3) petitioners were granted 6 weeks to approach the GRC [para. 28(iv)].

The State was requested to grant the mechanism statutory backing via the M.E.P.S. Act or Section 9 amendments to ensure permanence.