Hon'ble SINGH, J.—We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This Special Appeal arises out of an order passed by learned Single Judge, dated 8.7.2015, by which he had admitted the writ petition. He however did not find any ground to stay the impugned order and thus rejected the stay application. 3. It is submitted that learned Single Judge has not given any reason in rejecting the stay application. 4. We do not agree with the submission inasmuch as learned Single Judge has given sufficient reasons, in which, prima-facie he did not find any merit in the writ petition. These reasons were sufficient and can be taken into consideration for considering the stay matter. 5. The respondent was serving in an unaided educational institution. She was served with a charge-sheet with charges of misconduct. After preliminary enquiry, a departmental enquiry was held, in which the nominee of the Director of Education was not included, despite mandatory requirement under Rule 39(2)(c) of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Rules, 1993 (in short, 'the Rules of 1993'), which provides that after having per-used the preliminary enquiry report and the reply submitted by the employee, if any, if the managing committee is of the opinion that a detailed enquiry is required to be conducted, a three member committee shall be constituted by it in which a nominee of the Director of Education shall also be included. 6. It is admitted that nominee of the Director of Education was not included in the departmental enquiry. 7. It is submitted that Rule 39 of the Rules of 1993, is not applicable to an unaided institution, and in support thereof, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Central Academy Society vs. Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur Ors., 2010(3) WLC (Raj.) 21 = 2010(3) RLW 2326. 8. The question, which fell for consideration of the Full Bench was whether the provisions of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989, providing for prior approval of the Director of Education, or an officer authorised by him, are applicable before making a final order of dismissal against a teacher, employed in the unaided institution. The Full Bench opined as follows:- "40. The Full Bench opined as follows:- "40. Thus, we find that even while the first proviso to Section 18 of the Act of 1989 would not apply in the disciplinary action by the unaided private educational institution, the other provisions of Section 18 are, without any doubt, applicable to all the institutions aided or unaided." 9. On going through the provisions of the Rules of 1993, we find that the regulatory provisions are applicable to the unaided educational institutions, on the ground that they are recognized institutions. Rule 39 (2)(c) of the Rules of 1993, is a Rule, which is regulatory in nature and is applicable to the departmental enquiries in respect of the teachers of unaided institutions also. It does not specify that its provisions apply only to aided institutions. 10. It is then submitted that an application was made for nomination of the Director of Education, but that since nomination was not made, the departmental enquiry was held with the members of the managing committee, as a Committee for enquiry. 11. We have also examined the charges, and prima-facie we do not find any of the charges to be so serious, so as to entail punishment of dismissal from service. The departmental nominee serves as an impartial person for conducting fair and transparent enquiry. 12. In any view of the matter, the order passed by learned Single Judge is based upon the reasons, on which he has rejected the stay application. 13. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order. 14. The Special Appeal is dismissed.