[2026:RJ-JP:27755] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7583/2026 URN: CW / 16595U / 2026 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. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan. 2. Satish Kumar Vashist S/o Shri Radhey Shayam Vashist, Aged About 58 Years, R/o A 104, Jagdamba Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur-302021, Rjasthan 3. Shri Rajendra Kumar Gupta, Principal, Senior Secondary Adarsh Vidya Mandir, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4727/2026 URN: CW / 10420U / 2026 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. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan. 2. Rajesh Kumar Naruka, Son Of Shri Rop Singh Naruka, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of D-38, A, Mahesh Nagar, 80 Feet Road, Jaipur-302015, Rajasthan. 3. Shri Rajendra Kumar Gupta, Principal Senior Secondary Adarsh Vidya Mandir, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7475/2026 URN: CW / 16377U / 2026 [2026:RJ-JP:27755] (2 of 6) [CW-7583/2026] 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. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan. 2. Mahipal Singh Kulhari S/o Shri Sultan Singh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o 221, Fronterior Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Shri Rajendra Kumar Gupta, Principal, Senior Secondary Adarsh Vidya Mandir, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7476/2026 URN: CW / 16380U / 2026 1. Managing Committee, Senior Secondary Adarsh Vidya Mandir, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary. 2. Managing Committee, Adarsh Vidya Mandir, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan. 2. Devraj Sharma S/o Shri Umashankar Sharma, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Plot No.8, Chithwadi Ka Bagh, Gangapole, Jaipur-302002, Rajasthan. 3. Shri Rajendra Kumar Gupta, Principal, Senior Secondary Adarsh Vidya Mandir, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7494/2026 URN: CW / 16420U / 2026 1. Managing Committee, Senior Secondary Adarsh Vidya Mandir, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary 2. Managing Committee, Adarsh Vidya Mandir, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary [2026:RJ-JP:27755] (3 of 6) [CW-7583/2026] ----Petitioners Versus 1. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan 2. Sushil Jain S/o Late Shri Dhan Kumar Jain, Aged About 55 Years, R/o 102/19, Patel Marg, Mansarover, Jaipur- 302020, Rajasthan. 3. Shri Rajendra Kumar Gupta, Principal, Senior Secondary Adarsh Vidya Mandir, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7584/2026 URN: CW / 16596U / 2026 1. Managing Committee, Senior Secondary Adarsh Vidya Mandir, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary. 2. Managing Committee, Adarsh Vidya Mandir, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan 2. Satish Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Niranjan Lal Sharma, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of A-134, Ram Gali No.4, Rajapark, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Shri Rajendra Kumar Gupta, Principal, Senior Secondary Adarsh Vidya Mandir, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prahlad Singh Mr. Shyam Pratap Singh Chouhan Mr. Dhananjaya Jalutharia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhavya Kala for Mr. Devansh Sharma, Dy.GC Mr. D P Sharma Mr. Manish Kumar Sharma HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order 20/07/2026 1. The present writ petitions have been filed by the Managing Committee of the concerned Institute, aggrieved of order dated 07.01.2026 (Annexure-6) passed by the Rajasthan Non- Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur whereby stay petition as filed on behalf of the respondent-employees stood [2026:RJ-JP:27755] (4 of 6) [CW-7583/2026] disposed of with a direction to maintain status quo with regards to the services of the employees. 2. The facts relevant for the present controversy are that the respondent-employees had been put under suspension vide order dated 14.07.2025. A writ petition at the first instance was preferred by them which stood disposed of for the reason that an alternative remedy to move before the Tribunal was available to them. 3. Petitions before the learned Tribunal were hence moved by the employees wherein an interim order was passed on 19.08.2025 whereby the suspension order was stayed till the final decision of the original petition. In compliance of the said interim order, the respondent-employees joined on 20.08.2025. 4. However, a writ petition was preferred by the petitioner Committee against interim order dated 19.08.2025, being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12856/2025. 5. Vide order dated 19.09.2025, the said writ petition stood allowed and while setting aside order dated 19.08.2025, the matter was remanded back to the learned Tribunal to re-decide the stay application. 6. In compliance of the above order, the learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties, proceeded on to decide the stay application finally vide order impugned dated 07.01.2026. 7. What is evident on record is that the learned Tribunal vide order impugned, directed to maintain status quo regarding the service status of the employees. It is further evident that vide order dated 19.09.2025, interim order dated 19.08.2025 stood set [2026:RJ-JP:27755] (5 of 6) [CW-7583/2026] aside, that is to say, order of suspension dated 14.07.2025 stood revived. 8. It is an admitted fact that subsequent to 19.09.2025, no further/consequential order was passed by the Managing Committee. 9. As per counsel for the petitioners, no fresh order was required to be passed as by virtue of order dated 19.09.2025, suspension order dated 14.07.2025 ipso facto stood revived. 10. However, as per Counsel for the respondents, as the employees were once permitted to join and no further order was passed to discontinue their services, they in fact are continuing till date and hence, deserve to be continued in future too. 11. After hearing the counsels and perusing the record, this Court is of the clear opinion that vide order dated 19.09.2025 when the writ petition as filed by the Managing Committee stood allowed, the natural consequence of the same was that suspension order dated 14.07.2025 stood revived and interim order dated 19.08.2025 as passed by the Tribunal remained of no consequence. Therefore, order dated 07.01.2026 can be interpreted only in the manner that the employees remained under suspension. Maintaining status quo definitely would mean that the employees remain under suspension. 12. In that view of the matter, it is incomprehensible as to how the petitioner Committee is aggrieved of the order impugned. No case for interference in order dated 07.01.2026 is hence made out. 13. So far as the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal in order dated 07.01.2026 are concerned, it is the settled position of [2026:RJ-JP:27755] (6 of 6) [CW-7583/2026] law that findings recorded while deciding the stay application cannot be termed to be final for any purpose. The final adjudication definitely would be made by the learned Tribunal while deciding the petition finally. As observed and held by Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Assam Vs. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karamchari Sanstha; (2009) 5 SCC 694 : “21. A precedent is a judicial decision containing a principle, which forms an authoritative element termed as ratio decidendi. An interim order which does not finally and conclusively decide an issue cannot be a precedent. Any reasons assigned in support of such non-final interim order containing prima facie findings, are only tentative. Any interim directions issued on the basis of such prima facie findings are temporary arrangements to preserve the status quo till the matter is finally decided, to ensure that the matter does not become either infructuous or a fait accompli, before the final hearing.” 14. In that view, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the learned Tribunal to positively decide the original petitions as already been directed vide order dated 04.05.2026. 15. Needless to observe that the learned Tribunal cannot be and shall not be affected by the findings as recorded by it in order dated 07.01.2026. 16. No further orders need to be passed hence, the present writ petition is disposed of. (REKHA BORANA),J 28-33/RASHMI