Joint Action Committee dismisses NMSA claims as legally untenable

The Joint Action Committee (JAC) of COVID-era appointed healthcare workers has categorically denounced what it termed as “misleading and factually untenable press statement” issued by Nagaland Medical Students’ Association (NMSA) on February 27.
In a statement, JAC clarified that the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed in the Supreme Court by three individuals pertained to the same Cabinet order of August 2024 concerning the Special Recruitment Drive (SRD).
JAC said that the Supreme Court, while admitting the petition, categorically observed that “the present claims of the petitioners shall have no bearing on the appointments already made by the State,” thereby affirming the findings of the division bench of the Gauhati High Court. Therefore, irrespective of who filed the petition, the factual and legal position regarding the Cabinet’s decision remains unchanged, it stated.
Regarding the claim that COVID doctors’ posts were merely “temporary”, this it said was misleading and legally untenable. While the initial appointments were temporary due to urgent manpower requirements during the pandemic, JAC said the mode of recruitment was settled at the time of creation of 120 posts in June 2020.
It said that the government’s Office Memorandum dated July 5, 2020 expressly mandated that these posts would be filled through SRD, which was a conscious policy decision from the inception.
JAC stated that it was incorrect to portray these posts as ad hoc or stop-gap arrangements without a structured recruitment pathway, as the government had already laid down the mechanism for regularisation. It further stated that the doctors served continuously through all waves of the pandemic and continue to serve the State, and that their sustained service, rendered in reliance upon an express governmental policy, created a legitimate expectation protected under constitutional principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness. The temporary nature of emergency appointments, it said, cannot be invoked to defeat a declared policy decision.
With regard to NMSA’s statement that the Court did not mandate regularisation and that the dismissal of its writ petition was primarily on locus standi, JAC termed this a selective and misleading interpretation.
It said that the single bench of Gauhati High Court, in its judgment dated August 1, 2025 in WP(C) No. 239/2024, observed in paragraph 52 that “extraordinary decisions need to be taken to meet extraordinary situations,” thereby affirming the government’s action. In paragraph 55, JAC said the Court held that the petitioners (NMSA) had no locus standi to challenge the policy decision and had not made out a case warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
JAC said the judgment was subsequently challenged before the division bench of Gauhati High Court. Further, JAC said the chief justice, while pronouncing the judgment on December 11, 2025, upheld the findings of the single judge. In paragraph 34, JAC said the division bench observed that during extraordinary circumstances such as COVID-19 pandemic, the State was constitutionally empowered to conduct a special one-time recruitment exercise. In paragraph 35, it noted that the initial temporary engagement of COVID appointees was made through a proper selection process after creation of sanctioned posts. In paragraph 36, it said the court held that the appointees could not be termed as backdoor entrants and that no right of the appellants (NMSA) was violated. JAC said the bench found no infirmity in the reasoning of the learned single judge and permitted the State to proceed with regularisation under SRD, if not already completed.
In light of the concurrent judgments, JAC stated that the executive decision had undergone judicial scrutiny and had been upheld as legally valid. It also stated that when the State government increased the sanctioned strength from 391 to 511 by creating 120 additional medical officer posts, it was a progressive step toward strengthening the public healthcare system.
JAC maintained that these were newly created posts and that COVID-appointed doctors had not encroached upon or displaced any pre-existing sanctioned vacancies. Consequently, it said, no current or future aspirant had been deprived of an opportunity in respect of earlier sanctioned posts.
JAC further stated that expansion of cadre strength enlarges opportunities and strengthens healthcare delivery while preserving existing and future avenues of recruitment, and that portraying the augmentation as prejudicial to aspirants was factually incorrect and legally unsustainable.
JAC posed a question to NMSA for public clarification: if the NMSA did not file an SLP before the Supreme Court, what prevents it from doing so now or from seeking a review in accordance with law?
It stated that having chosen the legal route, the association ought to remain within that course. JAC further alleged that while the petition was pending in September 2025, NMSA resorted to street protests, and following dismissal of the petition, was attempting to exert public pressure by misrepresenting the Court’s judgment.
Such conduct, it stated, undermines the authority of the judiciary and attempts to nullify a decision upheld by the Court, raising the question whether such action is lawful and permissible under the Constitution of India.