HC upholds Nagaland's decision to regularise 98 doctors who served during COVID-19 pandemic
Dimapur: Upholding the Nagaland government’s decision to regularise 98 doctors who were appointed during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court has dismissed appeals challenging the Special Recruitment Drive (SRD) that confirmed the doctors' services.
A Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, said it found no fault in the earlier Single Judge ruling and allowed the State to proceed with the regularisation process, if it had not already been completed.
The court observed that the policy was a reasonable, one-time measure taken under extraordinary circumstances and held that the appellants were not legally aggrieved persons. The judgment was delivered on December 11, after being reserved on December 3.
Also read- Nagaland medical students protest regularisation of 280 contractual health workers
The appeals had been filed against a common judgment passed on August 1 by Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer, who had dismissed two writ petitions questioning the State Cabinet’s 2024 decision to regularise the in-service doctors.
Morung Express reported that the case dates back to the COVID-19 outbreak in 2020, when Nagaland faced an acute shortage of medical officers. To address the crisis, the State Cabinet approved the creation of new posts, including 44 medical officers and combined them with existing vacancies to advertise 168 medical officer posts.
These appointments were made on a strictly temporary basis for one year or until regular recruitment by the Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC) and had carried no promise of regularisation.
As the pandemic continued, the government decided to recognise doctors who had served on the front lines. In May 2022, the Cabinet resolved to conduct a Special Recruitment Drive, giving weightage for COVID duty and relaxing the upper age limit.
However, after the Nagaland Public Service Commission declined to conduct the drive, the Cabinet in August 2024 approved a departmental screening process to regularise 98 doctors who were either appointed during COVID-19 or were contractual doctors involved in the pandemic response.
The decision was challenged by two groups:
1. One group consisted of MBBS graduates who had not served during the pandemic, eligible for direct recruitment under the Nagaland Health Service Rules 2006, argued that the Cabinet’s 2024 decision violated the statutory rules, which require all junior grade medical officer posts to be filled through 100% direct recruitment via the NPSC.
2. The second group included doctors who had worked during COVID-19 but later left government service to pursue postgraduate studies. They contended that, having served over 100 days during the pandemic, they too should have been included in the SRD list.
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that several medical students in Nagaland staged a protest opposing the state government’s move to regularise 280 contractual health workers who were appointed during COVID-19 without conducting competitive examinations. They alleged that all recruitment should be merit-based and conducted through open competitive examinations.
In the ruling, Justice Longkumer observed that "The SRD was not a regular recruitment exercise open to all MBBS graduates, but a targeted, one-time policy aimed at a specific group of doctors who had served during the pandemic and were still on duty. The first set of petitioners, not having been part of this group, lacked locus standi and could not allege discrimination, as they were not similarly situated to the beneficiaries of the policy.
As for the second set of petitioners, they were no longer in service and thus could not seek regularisation. The SRD’s purpose was to confirm the services of those still working in the health department, not to extend benefits to those who had resigned or left for studies."
The Court also noted that the earlier Cabinet decisions of 2020 and 2022 formed the policy’s foundation, and since these had not been challenged, the 2024 decision could not be attacked in isolation.
