Morung Express News
Kohima | December 20
The Directorate of Health & Family Welfare (DoHFW) on Saturday announced the regularisation of 97 Medical Officers engaged during the COVID-19 pandemic with “immediate effect,” through a notification dated December 16.
The regularisation was carried out in fulfilment of the approval granted by the State Cabinet on August 7, 2024, and the subsequent verdict delivered by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, on December 11 in a writ appeal (WA/25/2025).
It was also based on the recommendation of the Departmental Screening Committee, the DoHFW stated in a press release issued on Saturday.
In its December 11 judgment, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury dismissed two writ appeals challenging a Single Judge verdict that had rejected writ petitions against the Nagaland government’s decision to regularise in-service medical officers engaged during the COVID-19 pandemic through a Special Recruitment Drive (SRD).
Finding “no infirmity” in the August 1 judgment, the Bench allowed the State to proceed with the regularisation under the SRD, if it had “not already been completed.”
The ruling turned on two core issues: the locus standi of the appellants and the constitutional validity of the State’s policy under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The Bench held that the appellants lacked “locus standi,” noting that one set was neither qualified during the initial COVID-19 recruitment nor eligible for the subsequent SRD, while the other had resigned from service to pursue higher studies.
While addressing locus standi, the Court also examined the policy on merits, given its implications for public employment, and found no violation of Articles 14 or 16.
Recognising that exceptional circumstances justify exceptional measures, the Bench held that the COVID-19 situation “undeniably constituted an unprecedented public health emergency.”
It clarified that the exercise was not an automatic regularisation without any selection or scrutiny (regularisation simpliciter), but was confined to a distinct class earlier engaged against sanctioned vacancies through a due selection process.
It further held that the policy was based on “intelligible differentia” (a clear and reasonable basis for treating one group differently), and that the COVID-19 doctors constituted a “distinct class, factually and legally different from other job seekers,” having served under hazardous conditions during a system-wide health crisis.
The Bench further observed that regularisation followed a competitive process, including a written test and interview, and therefore could not be “labelled as a backdoor entrant,” instead reflecting a “balanced approach that acknowledges the emergency service while ensuring merit-based evaluation.”
On the disclaimer in the appointment orders, the Court held that it only barred regularisation “as of right” and “does not fetter the state's constitutional authority” to adopt a later policy based on rational grounds.
Emphasising public interest, the Bench noted the need for a “stable cadre of trained medical personnel,” observing that replacing experienced COVID doctors would be disruptive and contrary to patient care.
As the special recruitment was “one-time, closed-class, merit-based and cabinet-approved,” the Court held that it does not per se violate Articles 14 or 16 and meets constitutional scrutiny, being “based on a uniform, transparent and non-arbitrary criterion.”
However, the petitioners have not exhausted their legal remedies and can challenge the Division Bench ruling before the Supreme Court.
