0
0
Kolkata, June 23: The Calcutta High Court has directed the West Bengal State Government to clarify the criteria and policy used for assigning posting orders to junior doctors, following a plea filed by three doctors who allege their recent transfers were retaliatory.
The case involves Dr. Debashis Halder, Dr. Asfakulla Naiya, and Dr. Aniket Mahata—all prominent participants in last year’s protest at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital after the rape and murder of a PG resident doctor. The doctors, now senior, challenged their recent postings, claiming they were moved to remote district hospitals despite having selected different institutions during the official counselling process based on their merit rank.
According to the doctors, the counselling process allows candidates to choose hospitals according to their merit, but the final posting order issued by the State Health Department in May assigned them to hospitals they did not select. Dr. Halder was posted to Gazole Rural Hospital instead of Howrah district hospital, Dr. Naiya to Deben Mahato Government Medical College and Hospital in Purulia instead of Prafulla Chandra Sen Government Medical College, and Dr. Mahata to Raigunj Government Medical College and Hospital instead of his preferred RG Kar Hospital.
Dr. Mahata, in particular, did not join his assigned post and faces potential disciplinary action. His counsel informed the court that two candidates ranked below him on the merit list were posted to RG Kar Hospital, raising questions about the fairness of the assignment process.
While considering the matter, Justice Basu directed the state to inform the court about the basis for junior doctors’ postings and sought a verbal assurance that no disciplinary action would be taken against Dr. Mahata until the next hearing. “Inform the court on Monday about the basis for posting junior doctors—the policy that is followed for postings,” the bench stated.
Both Dr. Halder and Dr. Naiya have reported to their assigned hospitals, while Dr. Mahata’s case remains pending. The court’s intervention highlights growing concerns over transparency and alleged vindictiveness in the state’s handling of doctor postings, especially following protests and activism within the medical community.
Disclaimer:
This news article is based on information available from publicly accessible sources and media reports as of the date of publication. The views and allegations expressed herein are as reported by the involved parties and media outlets, and do not imply endorsement by this publication. The accuracy of the information may be subject to ongoing judicial proceedings and official clarifications from the relevant authorities. Readers are advised to refer to official statements and court documents for the most current and verified information.
