Quasi-judicial forums need statutory authority; grievance committee findings were only recommendatory and could not imply reinstatement.

Judicial tribunals and binding adjudicatory forums can be constituted only under the Constitution or by legislation, and executive power under Article 162 cannot be used to create such a forum or exclude civil court jurisdiction. The Grievance Committee was therefore confined to examining complaints and making recommendations to the Education Department; its decision was not enforceable as a binding order. A finding that termination was illegal did not, by itself, amount to reinstatement or deemed continuation in service, and the committee could not create such legal consequences. The appeals succeeded and the High Court's interim directions were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a High Court can direct the State Government to create a quasi-judicial forum by executive order and exclude the jurisdiction of civil courts; (ii) whether the Grievance Committee's decision on a Shikshan Sevak's complaint is binding and enforceable or only recommendatory; (iii) whether a finding that termination is illegal can operate as reinstatement or deemed continuation in service.

Issue (i): whether a High Court can direct the State Government to create a quasi-judicial forum by executive order and exclude the jurisdiction of civil courts.

Analysis: Judicial tribunals and courts can be constituted only under the Constitution or by legislation. Executive power under Article 162 cannot be stretched to creating adjudicatory forums with binding judicial power. The constitutional scheme governing subordinate courts and tribunals, together with Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, bars a judicial order from excluding civil court jurisdiction or supplanting statutory adjudicatory mechanisms. A High Court cannot, by judicial direction, require the State to create a public quasi-judicial forum by executive order.

Conclusion: The direction to create a quasi-judicial forum by executive order and the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction were impermissible.

Issue (ii): whether the Grievance Committee's decision on a Shikshan Sevak's complaint is binding and enforceable or only recommendatory.

Analysis: The scheme, as originally framed, contemplated a grievance redressal body for considering complaints and informing the Education Department. In the absence of statutory source, such a committee cannot be converted into a binding adjudicatory authority. Its function, at the highest, is to examine grievances and make recommendations to the Government for further action.

Conclusion: The Grievance Committee's decision was only recommendatory and not enforceable as a binding order.

Issue (iii): whether a finding that termination is illegal can operate as reinstatement or deemed continuation in service.

Analysis: A declaration that termination is bad does not, by itself, amount to reinstatement or a declaration that the employee continues in service, save in recognized exceptions not applicable here. If the Government accepts the recommendation, it may direct the school to take back the Shikshan Sevak and take lawful action on non-compliance, but the committee itself cannot grant reinstatement or create continued employment by legal fiction.

Conclusion: The committee could not order reinstatement or deem the Shikshan Sevak to continue in service.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the High Court's interim orders were set aside, and the committee's decision was treated only as a recommendation to the Education Department, leaving further lawful remedies open.

Ratio Decidendi: A quasi-judicial tribunal with binding adjudicatory power cannot be created by executive order or judicial direction without statutory authority, and a grievance body without such authority can only make recommendations that do not operate as reinstatement or as a final determination of service rights.

---