Calcutta High Court: A petition was filed by the petitioners challenging an order dated October 5, 2024, from the Special College Council Members of R. G. Kar Medical College and Hospital, seeking relief from arbitrary suspension and expulsion on grounds that the Council exceeded its authority and lacked the power to impose such punitive measures. Kausik Chanda, J., held that the resolutions adopted by the Special College Council are not enforceable until a formal decision is made by the State Government, thereby directing that the implementation of the Council’s order be stayed until further notice and allowing the petitioners to maintain their status quo until the matter is reconsidered by the Regular Bench after the Puja Vacation.
The context of the petition revolves around the authority of the Special College Council Members, which the petitioners argue was exceeded in their decision-making.
Counsel for the second respondent submitted that the Special College Council Members of R. G. Kar Medical College and Hospital do not possess the authority to either suspend or expel students. He clarified that the impugned order is not enforceable but merely a recommendation that has been forwarded to the State Government for consideration and action. This submission suggests that the Special College Council’s powers are limited to recommendations and that any consequential actions against the petitioners would require further steps from the relevant state authorities. Furthermore, the advocate produced a letter dated 05-10-2024, which supports his assertion by indicating that the Council’s decisions were indeed sent to the Director of Medical Education, highlighting that the final decision-making authority rests with the State.
The Court noted that the resolutions adopted by the Special College Council cannot be executed until a formal decision is made by the State in accordance with legal protocols. The proceedings also saw an intervention request from an advocate for the R. G. Kar Medical College Residents’ Doctors Association, who sought to become a party to the case. However, the Court expressed reservations regarding the locus standi of the Association to intervene at this stage. Nonetheless, the Court granted the liberty to file an application for adding the Association as a party to the proceedings, thereby allowing room for future participation in the case.
Thus, the Court’s observations reinforced that until a decision is rendered by the State regarding the Council’s recommendations, the petitioners’ suspensions and expulsions will not take effect. The matter has been adjourned, with instructions to list it before the Regular Bench one week after the Puja Vacation, thereby ensuring that the petitioners have an opportunity for further legal recourse as the case develops.
[Pronay Maity v. Department of Health and Family Welfare, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 9613, decided on 22-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Dwaipayan Basu Mallick Mr. Sayantan Kar … for the petitioners (WPA 26086 of 2024)
Mr. Arkaprava Sen Mr. S. Kar … for the Petitioners (WPA 26087 of 2024)
Mr. Swapan Banerjee Ms. Sunita Shaw Ms. Amrita Tewari …. for the State (WPA 26086 of 2024)
Mr. Swapan Banerjee Ms. Rupsha Chakraborty Mr. S. Maitra …. for the State (WPA 26087 of 2024)
Mr. Suman Sengupta Ms. Amrita Panja Moulick …. for the R.G. Kar MCH
