Calcutta High Court
WPA/124/2026 of ANAND LINGESWARAN Vs THE ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AND ORS on 29 July 2026
HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/124/2026 Anand Lingeswaran Vs. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Society and others Ms. Anjili Nag, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sohini Biswas … for the petitioner Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar … for
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]
***
WPA/124/2026
Anand Lingeswaran
Vs.
The Andaman and Nicobar Islands Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Society and others
Ms. Anjili Nag, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Sohini Biswas
… for the petitioner
Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar … for the respondents July 29, 2026
[SR]
Item No.2
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The subject matter of writ petition is a reopening of a original complaint dated 29.05.2024 filed against the writ petitioner, who is a doctor attached to the ANIIMS.
2. The said complaint resulted to certain proceedings. Upon the said proceeding being challenged by the writ petitioner in WPA/325/2024, by an order dated 15.07.2024, a Coordinate Bench had recorded the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents on instructions that they are withdrawing the order dated 05.07.2024 and 29.05.2024 passed in respect of the said complaint dated 29.05.2024.
3. While in the second paragraph of the said order, at page 1, it was recorded that the learned counsel for the respondents states that if any action is taken against the petitioner in future shall be in accordance with law.
4. This Court is of the view that the aforesaid second paragraph at best entitled to the respondents to take out proceeding against the writ petitioner in respect of any new or fresh complaint that may be lodged against him.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the memorandum dated order dated 15.01.2025 and enquiry report dated 19.12.2024 stands quashed and set aside.
6. Liberty is, however, reserved to the respondent authority to initiate fresh action against any new complaint that may be lodged by any person against the writ petitioner, in accordance with law.
7. Since the petitioner’s contract is expiring, it is for the respondent to decide as per applicable laws and rules as to whether his contract would be extended similar to other employees.
8. With the aforesaid observations, WPA/124/2026 is allowed and disposed of. ( Rajasekhar Mantha, J. )