For representational purpose only.
Moa Jamir
Dimapur | December 15
The Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench (GHCKB) on December 11 dismissed two writ appeals challenging a Single Judge judgment that had rejected two writ petitions against the Nagaland government’s decision to regularise 98 in-service medical officers who served during the COVID-19 pandemic through a Special Recruitment Drive (SRD).
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury found “no infirmity” in the verdict delivered on August 1 by Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer and allowed the State to proceed with the regularisation under the Special Recruitment Drive, if it has ‘not already been completed.’
According to the detailed judgment uploaded on the GHCKB website on December 15, the ruling was primarily based on two issues: the locus standi of the appellants and the constitutional validity of the State’s policy under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Locus Standi in question
The Division Bench found that the appellants in both appeals lacked the necessary “locus standi” to challenge the government's SRD.
The first set of appellants were found neither qualified at the time of the initial COVID-19 recruitment nor eligible to participate in the subsequent SRD confined to COVID-period appointees.
“Since the appellants in Writ Appeal No. 32/2025 were not eligible during the initial COVID-19 engagement or the subsequent special requirement, no legally enforceable right of theirs is shown to be affected. The learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly held that they lack locus standi,” the Bench stated.
Accordingly, it held that they cannot be said to be “aggrieved persons” against the decision to regularise the services of the private respondents, as “no right of theirs has been infringed.”
Meanwhile, the second set of appellants had initially served during the COVID-19 period but had resigned from their services to pursue higher studies.
This group lost their opportunity to participate in the SRD for their own reasons because they “preferred higher studies over serving citizens in government hospitals,” the Bench held.
Thus, it affirmed the Single Judge's conclusion that they did not continue in their services and, therefore, “cannot be aggrieved” for the regularisation, as they are not similarly situated.
The constitutional test
Apart from the lack of locus standi, as the issue concerns a large class of public employment, the Division Bench also examined the policy on its merits and found no violation of Articles 14 (Equality before Law) or 16 (Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment) of the Constitution of India.
Among other points, it recognised that exceptional circumstances justify exceptional measures.
“During extraordinary circumstances such as the present one, the state is constitutionally empowered to conduct a special, one-time recruitment exercise, provided there is no statutory prohibition and the process remains transparent and rational,” it stated.
To this end, the Bench held that the COVID-19 situation “undeniably constituted an unprecedented public health emergency.”
It further pointed out that the exercise was not “regularisation simpliciter” but was “confined to a distinct class engaged earlier against sanctioned vacancies through a due selection process.”
The Bench also held that the COVID-19 doctors formed a “distinct class, factually and legally different from other job seekers” as they were recruited during an unprecedented health emergency, worked under hazardous conditions, and rendered continuous service when the entire health machinery was under strain.
The policy created an “intelligible differentia,” and its objective—to “retain experienced personnel, to recognise extraordinary service, and to fill long-standing vacancies in critical health institutions”—had a clear “rational nexus” to the classification, it added.
The Division Bench also held that regularisation followed a competitive selection (written test and interview) and could not be “labelled as a backdoor entrant.” It reflected a “balanced approach that acknowledges the emergency service while ensuring merit-based evaluation.”
Regarding the disclaimer in the original appointment orders (that no claim for regularisation shall be entertained), it held that this only bars the temporary appointees from demanding regularisation “as of right.”
It “does not fetter the state's constitutional authority to adopt a policy of regularisation at a later point in time, which is based on a rational decision,” it added.
Dwelling on the public interest dimension, the Bench said that the State needs a “stable cadre of trained medical personnel” and that replacing seasoned COVID doctors with fresh appointees would cause disruption and is contrary to institutional needs and patient care.
Since the special recruitment was “one-time, closed-class, merit-based and cabinet-approved,” the Bench found that a policy regularising COVID-19 doctors does not per se violate Articles 14 or 16 and meets constitutional scrutiny.
It was “based on a uniform, transparent and non-arbitrary criterion, i.e., length and nature of service rendered, and performance in the selection process,” it elaborated.
The Bench further pointed out that judicial review of policy choices is “minimal,” and the appellants had demonstrated no arbitrariness, discrimination, or mala fide intent in the government's decision.
Hence, it found “no infirmity in the reasoning of the learned Single Judge,” and dismissed the appeals, permitting the Nagaland Government to proceed with the regularisation process.
Hereafter, it remains to be seen whether the case will reach the Supreme Court.
.jpg)
