[2025:RJ-JP:38615] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12957/2025 1. Managing Committee, Senior Secondary Adarsh Vidya Mandir, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan Through Its Secretary. 2. Managing Committee, Adarsh Vidya Mandir, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Through Its Secretary. 3. Rajendra Kumar Gupta, Principal, Senior Secondary Adarsh Vidya Mandir, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Rajesh Kumar Naruka Son Of Shri Roop Singh Naruka, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of D-38-A, Mahesh Nagar, 80 Feet Road, Jaipur- 302015. 2. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prahlad Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. P. Sharma with Mr. Abhishek Khangarot HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 19/09/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned order dated 19.08.2025, passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby a Stay Application No. 16/2025 in main Application No.36/2025 titled as 'Rajesh Kumar Naruka vs. Managing Committee' filed under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989, has been allowed, staying the operation of the suspension order dated 14.07.2025 till the disposal of the main application. [2025:RJ-JP:38615] (2 of 4) [CW-12957/2025] 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the applicant/respondent No.1, Rajesh Kumar Naruka, a Senior Teacher in Senior Secondary Adarsh Vidya Mandir, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, challenged his suspension order dated 14.07.2025, issued by the petitioner No. 1 on the ground that same is passed without any authority of law; in violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; without jurisdiction as the same has been passed by the Society and not by the managing committee; further, the said order has been passed in revengeful manner in order to harass the respondent-employee. Along with Application No. 36/2025 under Section 21 of the Act, respondent No.1 also filed Stay Application No. 16/2025 with a prayer that during the pendency of the main application operation of the suspension order may kindly be stayed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a caveat had already been filed by the petitioners in respect of the main application as well as the stay application. The first date in the matter was fixed on 18.08.2025 but, as the file was under objection, the case could not be registered up to the pre-lunch session. It was registered in post-lunch session thereafter, and the learned Tribunal proceeded with grate haste and merely heard the counsel for respondent No.1 only. He further submits that no reasonable opportunity was granted to them either to be heard or to file reply, documents etc. and the learned Tribunal arbitrarily allowed the stay application on that very day and stayed the suspension order dated 14.07.2025 till the disposal of the main application and finally disposed of the stay application. He further [2025:RJ-JP:38615] (3 of 4) [CW-12957/2025] submits that the order virtually resulted in the grant of final relief at an interim stage which is contrary to well established law and various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the same deserves to be set aside or remanded back for reconsideration. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, while reiterating the grounds pleaded in the main Application, Stay Application and reply to the writ petition, submits that the petitioners were duly served with an advance copy of the application and stay application on 12.08.2025, but they did not seek time to file a reply. He contends that the impugned order was passed after providing due opportunity to all the petitioners and therefore the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity, or perversity; so as to warrant any interference by this Court under its writ jurisdiction. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record. 6. During the course of arguments, both the learned counsels for the parties conceded that without going into the merits of the case, the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the learned tribunal for re-adjudication of the stay application no. 16/2025. 7. In view of the consensus mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal and the learned Tribunal is directed to grant time to the petitioner to file a reply to the stay application [2025:RJ-JP:38615] (4 of 4) [CW-12957/2025] no. 16/2025, and also to provide the petitioner adequate opportunity of being heard; thereafter the learned tribunal is further directed to re-decide the stay application no. 16/2025 in application no. 36/2025, while considering the averments made in the stay application, reply, rejoinder (if any), the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, documents and case law so relied upon, without being influenced by the findings arrived at in the impugned order dated 19.08.2025, in accordance with law. 8. Let the parties are directed to remain present before Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur, on 08.10.2025. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. 10. The stay application and all other pending application(s) before this Court, if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/19