Facts: The petitioners, an educational institution and an Education Officer, challenged an order dated 27.11.2025 issued by the Divisional Deputy Director of Education. This order constituted an inquiry committee to investigate the petitioners based on complaints filed by a third party, Manish Govindrao Bhale. The petitioners contended that the complainant was a "habitual complainant" with no legal nexus to the institution or the department, and had previously attempted to extort money. They further argued that the department had earlier decided not to entertain his complaints, yet issued the impugned order in violation of a specific Government Resolution (GR) dated 14.10.2019, which prohibits entertaining complaints from unrelated third parties who have suffered no legal injury.
Procedural Posture: The petitioners approached the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, by filing Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the order constituting the inquiry committee.
Issue: Whether the Divisional Deputy Director of Education has the statutory authority to constitute an inquiry committee against a private aided school or a departmental officer based solely on the complaint of an unrelated third party, and whether such an order violates the Government Resolution dated 14.10.2019.
Holding: No, the order is without authority of law and is unsustainable. The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 27.11.2025.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act) and its Rules form a complete code and do not grant the Divisional Deputy Director general supervisory power to constitute independent inquiry committees outside the statutory framework. The Court emphasized the principle that administrative authorities must act strictly within the bounds of power conferred by statute. Furthermore, the action was found to be in direct violation of the Government Resolution dated 14.10.2019, which was issued specifically to prevent the harassment of public servants and institutions by "self-styled activists" or strangers. The Court rejected the State's argument that a preliminary inquiry causes no prejudice, noting that unauthorized inquiries lead to stigma, administrative pressure, and disruption of institutional functioning.