Cuttack: The three-month-old face-off between SCB Medical College and Hospital's head of urology department and his postgraduate students has taken a new turn with the intervention of Orissa High Court.

Acting on a petition filed by the postgraduate students, the high court in an interim order has directed the state government to appoint another head of department in place of Datteswar Hota within 10 days and keep him away from the examination process.

Initially, the postgraduate doctors' union of the hospital had started ceasework on February 19 after it was alleged that Hota constantly mentally harassed and abused postgraduate students and forced them to work on long duty hours in the hospital and then at his nursing home.

The union called off the ceasework on the 10th day after the state government bowed down to their demands and ordered the transfer of Hota on February 27.

But Hota challenged the order as defective and got a stay on it from the State Administrative Tribunal to continue as the HoD.

Aggrieved, the postgraduate students sought the intervention of the high court.

In their petition, 12 postgraduate students of urology department expressed apprehensions that they would "face difficulty" if Hota continued as the head of department and was involved in the conduct of the examinations to be held shortly.

After a preliminary hearing on Friday, the division bench of Chief Justice Vineet Saran and Justice B.R. Sarangi posted the matter for hearing after five weeks along with a reply from the state government on the issue.

However, the bench in an interim order said: "In such view of the matter, it is directed that the state government in the meantime shall appoint a head of department within ten days from today other than Professor Datteswar Hota and shall ensure that he will not be involved in the process of examination."

The court also allowed four weeks' time to the state government, dean and principal of SCB Medical College and Hospital and Hota to file counter affidavits to the petition and one week's time to petitioners to file rejoinders to it.

The petitioners had cited the report of the inquiry committee on the allegations of the postgraduate students of urology department.

In the report, the committee had opined that the allegations regarding the working hours and duty pattern of the postgraduate doctors of urology department "are unfounded as they are allowed adequate time during the 8am -10pm work schedule pattern".

"This is necessary in the greater interest of the functioning of the department," the committee had said in its report, while indicating that the duty chart of the urology department showed a 8am-8pm duty pattern for all the postgraduate doctors.