Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010204652025 2025:GAU-AS:13744 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5899/2025 HOLY CROSS H.S. SCHOOL REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL REGISTERED OFFICE AT SONAI ROAD, P.O AND P.S- RANGIRKHARI, SILCHAR, DISTRICT- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788005 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:SUBHRADEEP KAR PURKAYASTA SON OF LATE PRAMATHA CHANDRA KAR PURKAYASTHA RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 28 HRISHI AUROBINDO SARANI RANGIRKHARI SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACAHAR ASSAM PIN-788005 3:SUROJIT NATH FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN RESIDENT OF TARAPUR STATION ROAD SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788003 4:SMT GAURI NATH WIFE OF SRI SUROJIT NATH RESIDENT OF TARAPUR STATION ROAD SILCHAR Page No.# 2/4 DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 78800 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K K DEY, MR V K BAROOAH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU., BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER Date : 15.10.2025 Heard Mr. K. K. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. N. M. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department for the respondent No. 1. [2.] Having regard to the nature of the grievance projected by the petitioner, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself. [3.] The grievance projected by the petitioner in respect of the Order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the Court of Educational Tribunal-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Cachar, Silchar in Educational Tribunal Case No. 01 of 2025 (Annexure – 16), by which the Tribunal while issuing notice to the respondents had passed an interim order staying the termination order dated 08.07.2025 of respondent No. 2, till disposal of the case. [4.] The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner institution being a minor educational institution as defined under Clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India as well as Assam Non-Governmental Education Page No.# 3/4 Institution (Regulation and Management) Act, 2006, the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and much less pass an interim order staying the termination order. The learned counsel submits that by staying the termination order, it would amount to granting final relief to the respondent No. 2, which otherwise will not permissible in law. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied upon the Apex Court decision in State of Haryana Vs. Suman Dutta, (2000) 10 SCC 311. The learned counsel has also relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in Abdul Gofur Mondal Vs. State of Assam & Ors., 2015 (2) GLT 337 (FB). [5.] Having regard to the above projection and taking into account the fact that the respondent is yet to make the response to the complaint submitted by the respondent No. 2 before the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered view that the objections and grievances projected by the instant writ petitioner be raised before the Tribunal by filing appropriate response to the complaint. Thereafter, the Tribunal would consider the same and bring the complaint to its logical conclusion. [6.] Insofar as the interim order passed by the Tribunal, this Court in view of with the decision of the Apex Court as referred hereinabove and finds that staying of the termination order would amount to re-instatement of the respondent No. 2, pending finalization of the complaint. Therefore, the Order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the Tribunal insofar as staying operation of the termination order dated 08.07.2025 is set aside. The petitioner shall approach the Tribunal on the next date fixed along with a copy of the objection of the complaint made by the respondent No. 2, whereafter, the Tribunal shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law and bring the same to its logical Page No.# 4/4 conclusion. [7.] With the above observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant