Two govt doctors approach Calcutta HC challenging 'arbitrary' postings
Kolkata: The West Bengal government on Friday was embroiled in yet another legal battle over the alleged arbitrary postings of three senior resident doctors by the state Health Department, with two of them approaching the Calcutta High Court to challenge the order.
The petition filed by Debasish Halder and Asfaqulla Naiya has been admitted by the single-judge vacation bench of Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee. The tentative date of the first hearing in the matter is June 5.
It is not yet clear whether Aniket Mahato, the third senior resident to allegedly become a victim of arbitrary postings like Halder and Naiya, will later become a party in the same case or will file a separate petition in the matter.
All three of them were lead faces of the movement against the ghastly rape and murder of a junior woman doctor of state-R.G. Kar Medical College & Hospital in Kolkata within the hospital premises in August last year.
While all three of them were given postings in far-off places, ignoring their first choice of postings during the counselling session on this issue, Halder was given a posting at a hospital that does not officially have any vacancy for senior residents currently.
What was more intriguing was that while a total of 778 junior doctors attended the counselling session for allotment of postings as senior residents, only Halder, Mahato, and Naiya were selectively denied their first choice of postings.
The West Bent Bengal Junior Doctor's Front (WBJDF), the umbrella body of junior doctors in the state spearheading movement against the R.G. Kar rape and murder tragedy, has announced that they would be behind Halder, Mahato, and Naiya in their legal battles against such arbitrary postings.
The three senior doctors have explained that their complaint is not about their posting at far-off places but against the total lack of transparency in the posting allotment process. They also claimed that besides seeking justice for the R.G. Kar rape & murder victim, their demand was also total transparency in the medical administration system in the state.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Invoking anti-gangster law to counter one communal violence incident triggered by a social media post is misuse: SC
The Supreme Court has concluded that the use of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act — a law meant to counter organised crime — in a solitary case of communal disturbance caused by an 'incendiary' social media post, amounts to a misuse of the stringent penal law. The recent judgment, authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta, came after the court heard an appeal filed by people accused under the State law for mobbing and vandalising the business establishment of a man who posted content derogatory to a particular religion on social media. 'When juxtaposed with the object and intent of the U.P. Gangsters Act, which was enacted to combat organised gang-based crime and dismantle criminal syndicates that pose a persistent threat to public order, the application of the Act to the appellants based on a single incident of communal violence flaring up from an incendiary post made against a particular religion represents a significant departure from its legislative purpose,' Justice Mehta wrote. 'Colourable exercise of power' The judgment said the application of the Gangsters Act in the current case bore the 'hallmark of colourable exercise of power for purposes extraneous to the Act's legitimate objectives'. The court reminded the State government of Article 21 of the Constitution that 'no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law'. Justice Mehta observed that the procedure prescribed by law must be fair, just, reasonable, and not arbitrary, presumptive, or oppressive. The constitutional guarantee of personal liberty acquired even greater significance when an 'extraordinary legislation with stringent provisions' like the U.P. Gangsters Act was invoked by the State, he said. 'The power conferred upon the State cannot be wielded as an instrument of harassment or intimidation, particularly where political motivations may be at play,' Justice Mehta emphasised. 'Need solid evidence' Extraordinary penal provisions, particularly those that substantially abridge regular procedural safeguards like the U.P. Gangsters Act, must be invoked only if the evidence met a threshold of credibility and substantiality. 'The materials relied upon must establish a reasonable nexus between the accused and the alleged criminal activity… When a statute creates serious fetters on personal liberty, the evidentiary foundation for its invocation must be commensurately strong, supported by concrete, verifiable facts rather than vague assertions,' the top court held. Quashing the FIR and allowing the appeal, the court said the case failed to meet the 'essential threshold' required to invoke the Gangsters Act. It had rested 'largely on presumptive theories rather than presenting tangible material to establish the probability that the appellants were engaged in organised criminal activity,' the court said.
Time of India
20 hours ago
- Time of India
Speak freely
Why all courts must protect your right to speak your mind In India, the Constitution says you have the right to speak freely – as long as you don't break certain fair rules (like spreading hate or lies). But this right only really works if all courts across the country protect it. Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) – the top court in India – stood up strongly for free speech. In the case of a film called Thug Life by Kamal Haasan, someone said their feelings were hurt and wanted the film blocked in Karnataka. But the SC said no – just because someone is offended doesn't mean another person should lose their right to express themselves. If hurt feelings were enough, then free speech would always be in danger. This isn't the first time. Just a few months ago, in a case about poet Imran Pratapgarhi, the SC said that even if lots of people dislike your opinion, you still have the right to share it. But not all courts agree. Recently, the Calcutta High Court told a young person, 'You can't hurt others just because you have free speech.' And the Karnataka High Court told Haasan something similar. Lower courts also sometimes say things that go against what the SC has already made very clear. This creates confusion and makes people afraid to speak their minds, because they don't know if a local court might punish them, even if the SC would support them. In a strong democracy, free speech matters. And if it's a right promised by the Constitution, every court – not just the top one – needs to protect it. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
SSC Scam in West Bengal: Calcutta HC stays state govt's relief scheme for sacked non-teaching staff
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court on Friday granted an interim stay , restraining the West Bengal government from implementing a scheme to provide monetary assistance to non-teaching staff ( Group-C and Group-D ) who had lost their jobs following a Supreme Court judgment in April this year. The court has directed the state government to file an affidavit within four weeks and reply, if any, within a fortnight. The Single Judge Bench of Justice Amrita Sinha, who was hearing the case said, "As an interim measure, the State is restrained from giving any effect and/or further effect to the impugned Scheme till September 26, 2025 or until further order." Pointing out that the "conflicting stand of the State does not appear to be proper", the court observed that "If it is the specific stand of the State that the review application is pending, then the State ought to have taken leave of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to give effect to the impugned Scheme. On one hand the State proceeds to publish a new Scheme without obtaining leave of the Court where the matter is alleged to be pending, and on the other, when the said Scheme is challenged before the Court, the State opposes the same citing pendency of the review application. Such a conflicting stand of the State does not appear to be proper." The Group-C and D categories, along with the SSC teachers, had lost their jobs after the Supreme Court order on April 3, cancelling the appointments of 25,752 teaching and non-teaching staff in the cash-for-jobs scam last month. The West Bengal government had announced a stipend to Group-C and Group-D under the West Bengal Livelihood Social Security Interim Scheme, 2025 on a temporary basis, providing ₹25,000 and ₹20,000 for non-teaching staff Group-C and Group-D of the sacked employees respectively, to help their distressed families. They were recruited through the 2016 selection process conducted by the West Bengal School Service Commission. Meanwhile, the High Court's order has sparked a political slugfest . Trinamool Congress spokesperson Kunal Ghosh said, "West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee stood by the employees and their families, who lost their jobs following the apex court order, and took a humanitarian step and decided to provide an interim relief. People can identify who went to court against such a humanitarian stand. Justice Amrita Sinha has given an interim stay today." Leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari welcomed the court's decision, asserting that the Chief Minister cannot unilaterally disburse funds from relief accounts.
