The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Bengal government to post “within two weeks” Aniket Mahata at RG Kar Medical College Hospital as senior resident in anaesthesiology.

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi passed the order while dismissing the Bengal government’s appeal, challenging the concurrent orders of a Calcutta High Court single-judge bench and a division bench, which had directed the state to post Mahata at RG Kar hospital instead of Raiganj Government Medical College and Hospital.

Mahata was the face of the massive protests in the aftermath of the gruesome rape and murder of a medical student at RG Kar hospital last year.

“After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in the peculiar facts of the case, we are not inclined to entertain the special leave petition and to interfere with the order passed by the high court. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed. Since the order passed by the high court is maintained, therefore, compliance now has to be made within a period of two weeks from today,” Justice Maheshwari, who passed the order, said.

The bench passed the order after hearing senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the state, who assailed the high court order, and senior advocate Sidharth Dave, who appeared for Mahata.

Earlier, on September 6, last year, Justice Biswasjit Basu had directed the state health department “to deploy and/or engage the petitioner (Mahata) in the second vacancy of senior resident in the discipline of anaesthesiology at RG Kar hospital with immediate effect”.

The state had challenged the single judge bench order before a division bench of the high court, which refused to interfere. The state has then moved to the Apex court.

The high court had passed the impugned orders on a writ petition filed by Mahata on June 9 last year, alleging discrimination by the state.

“In the present case, the state, following the mandate of the said SOP, has posted 869 out of the total 871 candidates in the hospitals opted by them at the time of counselling, but such mandate has not been followed in posting the petitioner and another candidate,” the judge had said.