Bombay High Court Upholds State’s Power to Create Education Grievance Committees via Executive Order, Directing Statutory Backing to Curb "Petty" Litigation and Reinforcing the Binding Nature of Precedents During Pending References.

🔒 For Members Only

Case: KAWDU S/O. RAMJI NYAHARE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION AND SPORTS DEPT., MUMBAI AND ORS.
Court: Bombay High Court
Date: 16-06-2026
Law: Constitution of India, Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfer and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act.

Full Judgment → MCQ Test →

In the corridors of Indian High Courts, a significant portion of the docket is often consumed by what judges term "petty matters"—routine administrative disputes that should have been resolved at the departmental level. A recent landmark judgment by the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) addresses this systemic inefficiency, offering a masterclass in administrative law and the limits of executive power. The ruling in Madhao Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha vs. State of Maharashtra provides a roadmap for streamlining grievances in the education sector while reinforcing the sanctity of judicial precedents.

The Doctrine of the "Living Law" During References

One of the most impactful aspects of this judgment is its reliance on a recent Supreme Court mandate regarding how High Courts must handle pending references. Often, when a Division Bench doubts a previous ruling and refers it to a Larger Bench, lower courts and authorities hesitate to act. The Court, citing Union Territory of Ladakh vs. J&K National Conference, clarified that the law as it stands must be followed until the Larger Bench actually overturns it.

"We make it absolutely clear that the High Courts will proceed to decide matters on the basis of the law as it stands. It is not open, unless specifically directed by this Court, to await an outcome of a reference or a review petition."

This ensures that the administration of justice does not grind to a halt simply because a legal question is being debated at a higher level.

Executive Power as a Gap-Filler

The judgment delves deep into Article 162 of the Constitution of India, which outlines the executive power of the State. The petitioners challenged a Government Resolution (GR) that created a Grievance Redressal Committee, arguing it overstepped into legislative territory. The Court, however, upheld the State's right to issue administrative instructions where a legislative vacuum exists. This reinforces the idea that the State is charged with the "residue" of governmental functions necessary for general administration.

Fair Play vs. Quasi-Judicial Trappings

A fascinating nuance in the judgment is the distinction between an "executive forum" and a "judicial forum". The Court observed that just because a committee uses terms like "hearing", "evidence", or "decision", it does not automatically become a court or a quasi-judicial body. These terms are often merely indicative of "fair play" which must be followed in any administrative function. This distinction is crucial for maintaining the separation of powers while ensuring that departmental committees remain procedurally just.

The Push for Statutory Permanence

While the Court upheld the current Grievance Redressal Committee established via a Government Resolution, it issued a strong recommendation for the future. It noted that for such mechanisms to have "greater efficacy and permanence", they should be backed by actual legislation. The Court requested the State to consider amending the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (MEPS) Act to provide a statutory basis for these committees, effectively turning a temporary fix into a permanent institutional pillar.

The Ethical Duty of the "Officer of the Court"

In a surprising turn, the Court took a moment to deprecate the conduct of a learned Advocate who had taken inconsistent stands—supporting the creation of the grievance mechanism in one case and challenging its validity in another. This serves as a stern reminder that lawyers are, first and foremost, officers of the court. The Court emphasized that a dual stand fails the duty of transparency and consistency required in legal practice.

Conclusion: A Less Congested Future

By validating the Grievance Redressal Committee and ordering the creation of an additional State-level appellate body, the Bombay High Court has signaled that it will no longer tolerate being the first port of call for routine administrative failures. This judgment is a significant step toward judicial economy, ensuring that the High Court’s time is reserved for complex constitutional questions rather than routine pay-scale disputes.