Nagaland: NIDA seeks withdrawal of ‘on hold’ order on Covid doctors

The Nagaland In-Service Doctors Association (NIDA) has appealed to the State Cabinet to withdraw the “on hold” clause on the regularisation of Covid doctors, stating that the move undermines the judgments of the Gauhati High Court, which had upheld the Special Recruitment Drive (SRD).
In a statement issued through its Media Cell, NIDA acknowledged what it described as the well-deserved recognition of Covid doctors for their invaluable service during the pandemic through a one-time dispensation and SRD, followed by regularisation. However, the association expressed dismay that, despite completion of the process, the regularisation had been kept on hold by a Cabinet notice and the constitution of a High Powered Committee (HPC), reportedly in response to an ultimatum issued by the Naga Students’ Federation (NSF). NIDA maintained that the matter had already been vindicated by a court of law and termed the decision to keep the regularisation on hold as an act that undermined the authority of the High Court. It asserted that no entity was above the law and cautioned against allowing “kangaroo courts on the streets” to overrule constitutional courts.
Clarifying the background, NIDA stated that the Covid doctors were appointed during the pandemic through open advertisement and selected on the basis of merit, experience and interviews conducted by a scrutiny board that included faculty members from outside the State government. It stressed that the appointments were neither irregular nor illegal and were not comparable to alleged backdoor appointments in other cases. The association further stated that the court had found that the SRD did not violate constitutional principles, particularly Articles 14 and 16.
According to NIDA, during the pandemic, the State government created exigency posts of Medical Officers to manage the unprecedented health crisis. It informed that out of 511 sanctioned posts of doctors, including those created during Covid, 396 posts were filled, inclusive of Covid appointees; 30 posts were under the Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC) recruitment process; and 85 posts remained vacant. It emphasised that the Covid-created posts did not encroach upon regular vacancies arising from retirements.
Recalling the circumstances during the pandemic, NIDA stated that the health emergency had necessitated the invocation of the Epidemic Act and that the healthcare system had faced intense strain with the threat of collapse. It claimed that many young Naga doctors working in reputed institutions outside the State resigned from promising positions to respond to the State government’s call for manpower. Some institutions had reportedly been reluctant to accept their resignations due to shortages. The association maintained that these doctors made significant personal and professional sacrifices to serve the people of Nagaland.
NIDA also argued that it was a prerogative and established practice of the government to reward individuals who rendered extraordinary service or brought laurels to the State. It cited the example of an Olympian archer from Nagaland who was appointed to a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) post in recognition of sporting achievement. In that context, NIDA asserted that Covid warriors deserved not only regularisation but even bravery awards for serving on the frontlines during the pandemic.
The association outlined the sequence of events, stating that, due to prevailing circumstances, the normal NPSC recruitment process could not be conducted during the pandemic. It claimed that the NPSC had no objection to the Department proceeding with the SRD, as there was no provision for it to conduct such a drive. It further stated that when the SRD process was initiated, certain doctors challenged it in court.
NIDA pointed out that the High Court, in both the writ petition and the subsequent appeal filed by the same parties, had observed that the SRD did not suffer from arbitrariness or discrimination and had directed the State to proceed with the regularisation. It also stated that the Supreme Court of India, while admitting a Special Leave Petition, had clarified that the petition would not have any bearing on appointments already made. In light of these developments, NIDA expressed surprise that the NSF continued to protest against what it termed a legally sanctioned procedural process.
It stated that the Cabinet’s decision to keep the regularisation on hold at the behest of an ultimatum was unfortunate and dishonourable, and reflected what it described as a drift of constitutional administrative authority away from the elected government.
NIDA urged the Cabinet to withdraw the “on hold” clause to prevent confusion in lower administrative offices and to allow its bona fide members to continue healthcare delivery without obstruction. It stated that the Covid doctors had already completed the process of regularisation in compliance with the High Court’s orders and had joined the department legally, technically and constitutionally, becoming regular members of the association.
The association affirmed its commitment to safeguarding the welfare of its members and cautioned that, if the issue led to further humiliation, it would be compelled to adopt democratic measures. It informed that an Emergency General Body Meeting would be convened shortly, with details to be announced.
NIDA further referred to the High Court judgments in WP(C)/187/2024, Dr Abolu N Yeptho and 15 Ors vs State of Nagaland and 100 Ors, and WA/25/2025, Dr Japeth Thono and 56 Ors vs State of Nagaland and 100 Ors, for details of the court’s directions on the matter.