Gauhati High Court Upholds Regularisation of 98 Doctors in Nagaland

Judicial Ruling on Special Recruitment Drive

Dimapur: The Kohima Bench of the Gauhati High Court has affirmed the Nagaland government’s decision to regularise 98 doctors appointed during the COVID-19 pandemic. In a ruling that dismissed appeals against the Special Recruitment Drive (SRD) confirming these doctors’ services, the Division Bench, consisting of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, found no errors in the earlier Single Judge ruling. The court allowed the State to move forward with the regularisation process, should it not have been completed already.

Context of the Court’s Decision

The court characterized the policy as a reasonable, one-time measure enacted under extraordinary circumstances, emphasizing that the appellants lacked legal standing in this matter. This judgment was delivered on December 11, following its reservation on December 3.

Background of the Appeals

The appeals were directed against a common judgment issued on August 1 by Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer. This previous ruling had dismissed two writ petitions challenging the State Cabinet’s 2024 decision to regularise the in-service doctors.

Origin of the Case

According to Morung Express, the case traces back to the onset of the COVID-19 outbreak in 2020, during which Nagaland faced a significant shortage of medical officers. To mitigate this crisis, the State Cabinet approved the creation of new posts, including 44 medical officers, and combined them with existing vacancies to announce 168 medical officer positions. These appointments were temporary, lasting one year or until regular recruitment was conducted by the Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC), and made no promises of permanent positions.

Government Response During the Pandemic

As the pandemic persisted, the government recognized the contributions of doctors who had served on the front lines. In May 2022, the Cabinet decided to initiate a Special Recruitment Drive, allowing for weightage in consideration of COVID duty and relaxing the upper age limit for applicants. However, when the NPSC declined to conduct this drive, the Cabinet approved a departmental screening process in August 2024 to regularise 98 doctors who had been appointed during the pandemic or were contractual doctors involved in the response.

Challenges to the Regularisation Decision

Two groups contested the decision:

1. **MBBS Graduates**: This group, consisting of MBBS graduates who did not serve during the pandemic and were eligible for direct recruitment under the Nagaland Health Service Rules 2006, argued that the Cabinet’s 2024 decision violated statutory rules mandating that all junior grade medical officer posts be filled through 100% direct recruitment via the NPSC.

2. **Former Government Doctors**: The second group included doctors who had worked during the pandemic but later left government service for postgraduate studies. They claimed that, having served over 100 days during the pandemic, they should have been considered for inclusion in the SRD list.

Protests Against Regularisation Process

Medic Helpline previously reported that several medical students in Nagaland protested against the state government’s decision to regularise 280 contractual health workers appointed during the pandemic without conducting competitive examinations. The students asserted that all recruitment should adhere to merit-based criteria through open competitive examinations.

Court’s Observations on SRD

In his ruling, Justice Longkumer noted 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.” He clarified that the first group of petitioners, not being part of this specific group, lacked the standing to allege discrimination. As for the second group, they were no longer in service and could not seek regularisation. The SRD’s intent was to confirm the services of those still employed in the health department, not to extend benefits to those who had resigned or left for further studies.

Policy Foundation and Legal Standing

The Court further noted that earlier Cabinet decisions from 2020 and 2022 laid the groundwork for the policy. Since these decisions had not been contested, the 2024 decision could not be challenged in isolation.

Further Developments

Additionally, the Nagaland Medical Students’ Association has called for transparency in the recruitment process of medical officers, underscoring the ongoing discussions surrounding hiring practices within the state’s health sector.