COVID-era Doctors
Media Cell
Apropos the various publications regarding the one-time special dispensation undertaken by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, we, the doctors appointed during the COVID-era, are constrained to issue this statement to provide clarification and ensure that facts are accurately represented.
Genesis of special recruitment drive
In 2020, the state and the global community were confronted with challenges of an unprecedented and unimaginable nature as the COVID-19 pandemic unfolded. It exposed the acute shortages of manpower in the state healthcare system, which compelled the state government to create different category of posts including medical officer post to tackle the COVID-19 crisis. The Government, in its notification dated 5th July 2020 stated that these newly created posts would be filled through a special recruitment drive(SRD) at a later date. A one-time age relaxation of up to 45 years was also provided, and open advertisement came out on 4th August 2020 which appeared in all the leading newspapers. But out of 168 medical officer posts advertised, only160 candidates applied. Even then, the COVID era healthcare workers went through a proper selection process of screening, shortlisting and interview.
Why not through NPSC?
Due to the complete lockdown and prevailing situations in 2020, it was not feasible for NPSC to conduct the examination. Even if it was possible, the lengthy process of examination which takes about a year will render the purpose of newly created posts useless, as the requirement of healthcare workers were urgent and immediate. So the Government then formed a departmental recruitment board consisting of government representatives and subject experts and conducted the selection process through interview. Under Article 162, the state is empowered to create new posts and fill them as per situational needs. And recent policy decision of regularization was done on that newly created posts, not on existing NPSC-sanctioned seats. The decision serves the larger public interest by retaining trained, experienced COVID-era doctors, including many of us who are above the cut-off age to sit for the NPSC examination. This strengthens healthcare infrastructure, workforce stability, emergency preparedness and continuity of service delivery.
Equal opportunity and Meritocracy from inception
From the very beginning, the recruitment process upheld equal opportunity and meritocracy. The posts were openly advertised on 4th Aug 2020, giving all eligible candidates a fair chance to apply and compete. Selection was conducted transparently on the basis of qualifications and merit, without any preferential treatment or irregular entry. Even during the urgency of the pandemic, the process did not compromise on fairness or eligibility norms, ensuring that only qualified and competent professionals were appointed. This reaffirmed the State’s commitment to a fair, transparent and merit-based system of public employment.
Apprehensions of aspirants
No doubt the aspirants are apprehensive, it is understandable and genuine. But there are enough posts for them too. Currently 30 posts of medical officer are under the process of recruitment in NPSC and still many posts of MO remains vacant, and further vacancies continues to arise due to retirement. The regularization of the 97 COVID-era doctors in no way affects present aspirants as the posts we occupy were part of a newly created posts sanctioned specifically for special recruitment during the pandemic. These posts are entirely separate from the existing sanctioned vacancies, and therefore do not diminish or reduce opportunities for current candidates. In fact, the addition of these posts has strengthened the healthcare system by increasing the overall sanctioned manpower and expanding the State medical workforce capacity.
Challenges of healthcare workers during pandemic
During the first wave, healthcare workers were thrust into unprecedented situation marked by fear psychosis and complete uncertainty. COVID-19 was a new, poorly understood disease with rapidly evolving clinical presentations and no established treatment protocols. Doctors, nurses, and support staff worked under constant anxiety, unsure of how contagious the virus truly was or how its effects would be. The lack of scientific clarity created significant psychological stress as we struggled to make life-saving decisions without reliable guidelines. Protective equipment was scarce, leading to intense fear of infection and the possibility of transmitting virus to family members. Many healthcare workers lived in isolation from their own homes to protect loved ones, compounding emotional strain. The stigma in society was high, with frontline workers often facing discrimination due to exaggerated public fear. Some healthcare workers were even chased out from their rented house to name a few. Despite these challenges, we continued to serve with extraordinary dedication while adapting to new safety systems, triage procedures and hospital workflows almost overnight.
The second wave was far more brutal. The hospitalization caseloads increased steeply pushing healthcare infrastructure to breaking point. Healthcare workers struggled to manage rising cases, with ICUs overflowing, oxygen supplies running low and shortages of essential medicines making it worse. We often had to treat multiple critical patients simultaneously, making heartbreaking decisions when resources were limited. Many of us contracted the virus not just once but multiple times, forcing repeated periods of quarantine, only to return to duty immediately after recovery. It became a vicious cycle of physical exhaustion, herculean effort and mental struggle. We worked under immense pressure, frequently without rest, sleep or adequate recovery time, yet continued to provide care fueled by compassion, duty and a deep sense of responsibility.
Legitimate expectations of COVID Healthcare Workers
The promise of SRD by the government created a legitimate expectation among the concerned healthcare workers, who came forward to serve and rendered continuous frontline service during the most critical period and still continues to serve. From beginning, we had reasonably expected our service would be regularized based on the promise of the government through public notifications and the conduct of selection processes including open advertisement, shortlisting and interviews despite the total lockdown. Many of us set aside opportunities to pursue further postgraduate studies and instead chose to serve the state during and after pandemic, a decision which was taken in good faith and reliance upon the clear assurances of the Government policy decision. The doctrine of legitimate expectation mandates that when the State promises a benefit, it is bound to act fairly, reasonably and honor such representation. Any arbitrary deviation from this is a clear violation of Article 14.
Hon’ble High Court Judgement
The Single Bench of Gauhati High Court Kohima bench on 1st Aug 2025 ruled in favor of the COVID-19 appointees. In its judgement, the Single Bench dismissed the petitioners’ case on two primary grounds. First, the petitioners lacked locus standi, as they were not qualified at the time posts were advertised, and those who were eligible had not applied. Secondly, the Court held that the Cabinet is empowered to take extraordinary decisions, especially in the context of a public health emergency.
The Division Bench on its judgment given on 13th December 2025 after the petitioners re-appealed also has fully upheld the findings and reasoning of the Single Bench, reinforcing the legality and reasoning of the Government’s decision. The court concurred that the petitioners had no locus standi, as they were neither eligible nor qualified at the time when the posts were initially advertised, and those who met the eligibility criteria had failed to apply. The Bench reiterated that individuals who had no legal right or enforceable claim at the relevant time cannot later challenge a process or seek to invalidate the appointments of others.
Furthermore, the Division Bench agreed with the Single Bench that the Cabinet possessed the lawful authority to take extraordinary decisions in extraordinary circumstances, particularly during a crisis of unprecedented magnitude such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court recognized that the Government was compelled to act swiftly to safeguard public health and ensure continuity of medical services when the healthcare system was under severe stress. The decision to regularize or extend service protections to frontline workers was therefore held to be a policy measure taken in good faith, within the executive’s domain, and justified by the exceptional situation. A deviation from Public Service Commission in an exceptional one time context does not automatically render recruitment /regularization illegal, particularly where the process ensures transparency and fairness.
The Division Bench also held that the COVID-era doctors cannot be labeled as “backdoor appointees”, as they were appointed through a due and transparent selection process. The Court observed that their appointments were made following established procedures, proper notifications and merit-based screening, and therefore did not constitute irregular or unlawful entry into service. They were recruited during an unprecendented health emergency, worked under hazardous conditions and rendered continuous service, when the entire health machinery was under strain. This constitutes a distinct class, factually and legally different from other job seekers and thus these features constitute an intelligible diffentia it noted. The objective behind their special recruitment and regularisation is to retain experienced personnel, to recognize extraordinary service, and to fill vacancies in critical health institutions. Therefore it does not violate Article 14. It further noted that Article 16 ensures equal opportunity among those eligible for the post. It does not confer a right to participate in class-specific recruitment justified by exceptional circumstances.
Supreme Court order
The Supreme Court while hearing a Special Leave Petition on 16th January 2026 filed by 3 appellants in the writ appeal, had ordered that ‘the present claim of the petitioners will have no bearing on the appointments already made by the state’. And so with this decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court upholding the regularization process, the matter has attained finality and any further opposition has become infructuous. Continued attempts to obstruct the implementation of the said judgments may amount to interference with the administration of justice and could attract contempt of court proceedings.
In conclusion, we must not forget what the world endured only a few years ago, with healthcare workers at the very centre of the crisis-both as protectors and as some of the most affected. We have chosen to remain silent all this while, placing our faith in the justice delivery system and respecting the due process of law. We firmly believe that as human beings and as members of the same society, our actions should be guided by the values of sympathy, empathy, compassion, and mutual respect for one another. Our silence was not a sign of weakness, but a reflection of our trust in the Hon’ble Courts and our hope that all stakeholders would uphold the principles fairness and humanity. If we cannot uphold humanity during a humanitarian crisis, then we have failed in the most fundamental sense of being human.
