MRIDUPABAN DUTTA Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. H.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department.

(2.) THE two petitioners involved in this writ petition have completed Homeopathy Degree Course i.e. BHMS. Presently they are undergoing internship duty, duration of which is one year. As submitted, the internship started from 2nd July, 2014. They are aggrieved by Annexure -10, 14 and 15 orders dated 01.07.2014, 04.08.2014 and 05.08.2014, by which they have been debarred/suspended from the internship for a period of three months w.e.f. 02.07.2014 to 01.10.2014. Annexure -10 is the minutes of the meeting of the respondent College Council held on 01.07.2014, in which a resolution was adopted demanding written apology from the petitioners to the office of the Principal in charge i.e. the respondent No. 3 for the purported misconduct on their part. Annexure -14 is the minutes of the meeting of the College Council held on 04.08.2014 adopting the resolution to debar the petitioners from the internship for a period of three months commencing from 02.07.2014 to 01.10.2014. Annexure -15 is the consequential order issued by the respondent No. 3 notifying suspension of the petitioners from joining the internship duty for the aforesaid period.

(3.) BEING not satisfied with the reply, the respondent No. 3 convened the College Council Meeting in his capacity as the Chairman and in the said meeting adopted the impugned resolution requiring the petitioners to submit written apology and that too to the respondent No. 3. As will be evident from the minutes of the meeting of the College Council, no reason was assigned as to why the reply submitted by the petitioners was not satisfactory. After the aforesaid resolution, the respondent No. 3 issued the Annexure -11 warning notice to the petitioner on 02.07.2014 alleging misconduct on their part and requiring them to submit their response to the aforesaid resolution under threat that upon failure to do so, they would not be allowed to join the internship duty. In response to the said warning notice, the petitioners submitted their reply stating therein that whatever they had done was in reference to the particular regulation and not otherwise. Their plea was that, as the representatives of the student's body, they had to raise their voice for the better interest of the college.