Nagaland: COVID-era doctors clarify on special recruitment

Doctors appointed under the one-time special recruitment drive during the COVID-19 pandemic have issued a detailed clarification responding to public discourse and concerns surrounding their regularisation by the Department of Health & Family Welfare.
In a statement issued through their media cell, the doctors said the clarification was necessary to ensure facts were accurately represented and misconceptions addressed. They traced the genesis of the special recruitment drive to 2020, when the pandemic exposed acute manpower shortages in the state healthcare system. Faced with an unprecedented global health emergency, the government created new categories of posts, including medical officer posts, to manage the crisis.
According to the doctors, a government notification dated July 5, 2020 clearly stated that the newly created posts would be filled through a special recruitment drive at a later stage.
They said a one-time age relaxation of up to 45 years was granted and an open advertisement was issued on August 4, 2020 in leading newspapers. Of 168 medical officer posts advertised, 160 candidates applied. Despite this, they said the recruitment process followed due procedure, including screening, shortlisting and interviews.
On why recruitment was not conducted through Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC), the doctors said the complete lockdown and prevailing circumstances in 2020 made it impractical for the NPSC to conduct examinations.
Even if feasible, they said the year-long examination process would have defeated the urgent purpose of filling newly created posts required for immediate deployment.
The government therefore constituted a departmental recruitment board comprising government representatives and subject experts, and selections were made through interviews.
Citing Article 162 of the Constitution, they said the state was empowered to create posts and fill them according to situational requirements. They clarified that the policy decision on regularisation applied only to newly created COVID-era posts and not to existing NPSC-sanctioned vacancies.
They said regularisation served public interest by retaining trained and experienced personnel, many now overage for NPSC exams, strengthening healthcare infrastructure, workforce stability, emergency preparedness and continuity of service delivery. On equal opportunity and merit, they maintained the recruitment process upheld fairness from the outset, with open advertisement, transparent selection based on qualifications and merit, and no compromise on eligibility norms.
Responding to apprehensions of aspirants, the doctors acknowledged the concerns but said sufficient vacancies remained. They noted 30 medical officer posts were under recruitment through NPSC, while many posts remained vacant and additional vacancies continued to arise due to retirements. Regularisation of 97 COVID-era doctors, they said, did not affect existing aspirants as these were newly created posts, expanding overall sanctioned strength.
They also detailed challenges faced during the pandemic, including extreme uncertainty, fear and psychological stress, shortages of protective equipment, social stigma, repeated infections, overwhelming caseloads, oxygen shortages and mental strain, with many deferring higher studies to serve.
Invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation, they said government assurances of a special recruitment drive created a reasonable expectation of regularisation and arbitrary deviation would violate Article 14. Referring to judicial scrutiny, they said the Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench, in a judgment delivered on August 1, 2025, ruled in favour of the COVID-era appointees. The Single Bench dismissed petitions on grounds that petitioners lacked locus standi and held the Cabinet was empowered to take extraordinary decisions during a public health emergency.
They said the Division Bench, in its judgment dated December 13, 2025, upheld the findings, reiterating that individuals without a legal or enforceable right at the relevant time could not later challenge the process. It further affirmed that deviation from Public Service Commission procedures in a one-time emergency context did not automatically render recruitment or regularisation illegal, provided transparency and fairness were maintained. The Division Bench also held COVID-era doctors were not “backdoor appointees” but a distinct class recruited during an unprecedented emergency, forming an intelligible differentia that did not violate Articles 14 or 16.
Referring to proceedings before the Supreme Court, the doctors said that during the hearing of a Special Leave Petition on January 16, 2026, the apex court ordered that petitioners’ claims would have no bearing on appointments already made by the state. With this order, they said, the matter had attained finality and further opposition had become infructuous.
They cautioned that attempts to obstruct implementation of the judgments could amount to interference with the administration of justice and attract contempt proceedings.
The doctors said the hardships endured during the pandemic must not be forgotten. They said they had remained silent out of respect for the judicial process and faith in the justice delivery system, and that their silence was not weakness but trust in fairness, humanity and the rule of law.