COVID era frontline healthcare workers
Extraordinary Circumstances: During the peak of the COVID-19 lockdown in 2020, the State Government of Nagaland, faced with an unprecedented health crisis and acute shortage of manpower, took an extraordinary policy decision to create posts for medical officers, nurses, technicians for immediate public service requirements.
Due Process of Recruitment: It may be noted that the Government had issued open advertisements through newspapers for these post vacancy during 2020 however only few responded .The candidates who had applied were examined by competent authority, interviewed and duly selected.
Nature of Appointment & Service Rendered: The selected doctors, nurses and technicians were assigned frontline COVID-19 duties across PHCs, CHCs, District hospitals and Covid Care Centre throughout Nagaland during the pandemic, and realising the need , their services continued to be utilized post-pandemic in the public healthcare sector.
Regularization as a One-Time Measure: The State Government, appreciating the sacrifice and service rendered by these health workers, exercised its power to relax the existing service rule to regularise the service of doctors through SRD as a One-Time special measure, with the objective of ensuring continuity of healthcare services.
The recent High Court order also indicates that the State Government is well within its statutory right to relax or amend service rules under exceptional and extraordinary circumstances such as pandemics in larger public interest.
Lack of Locus Standi: The High Court in its judgement on 01/08/2025 stated the petitioners lacks Locus standi as they were not applicants of the 2020 recruitment drive, being students and therefore ineligible at that point of time and some although qualified did not apply for the posts .
Therefore they were not similarly situated person and now they can not claim discrimination or deprivation of rights.
Contextual Interpretation: The decision must be understood in the backdrop of pandemic exigencies, where the primary objective of the State was to ensure uninterrupted delivery of healthcare services to the public.
Alignment with Central Government Policy: Note that the State Government’s action was in consonance with the recommendation of the Central Government to give preferential consideration to COVID-19 frontline health workers in matters of services regularization.
No Challenge to 2020 and 2021 Appointments: The fact that the protesting student body & the petitioners did not challenge the initial covid19 appointment in 2020 , which form the basis of the present regularization. Hence, the current opposition amounts to an afterthought.
Future Opportunities for Students: The medical students & aspirants remains free to compete for government service as and when fresh advertisements are issued . However, they cannot invalidate a policy decision taken during an extraordinary crisis such as pandemic to safeguard public health.
The Government as employer: The State having utilised the service of its employees in time of public emergency is responsible for the welfare of its employees and bound to reciprocate with continuity and job security.Therefore the employees have a legitimate expectation.
Differentiation between aspirants, opportunist and in service healthworkers: There is a clear differentiation between these category and merely to accommodate the demands of the aspirants, the state cannot leave behind those who have proven their competency, credibility and skill with those who haven’t proven themselves, equals have to be treated with equals and unequals differently.
The Bonafide intention of the Government, in creating additional posts and making emergency appointments during the unprecedented crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic, must not be misconstrued or mischaracterized as an act of corruption.
Such measures were undertaken in the larger public interest, with the sole objective of ensuring continuity of essential health services at a time when the entire system was under extraordinary strain. The Government acted with urgency to safeguard the lives of citizens, and these actions were necessitated by the prevailing circumstances, not by ulterior motives.
It is not wrong for the State Government as the largest employer to ensure job security for those of us who have already given our service at a time when we were called to serve, we did so without asking the nature of work or the risk involved, as the situation demanded.
The question before us today is not of confrontation but of conscience, today the very health worker who were the first and last line of defence stands vulnerable and threatened by uncertainity as new aspirants demand their share and their rights.
Does the frontline healthworker who are government employees have right too?
A right to livelihood and right for dignity and security in their workplace?
Having served the State faithfully both during and after the pandemic, the healthcare workershave a legitimate expectation that in due course of time, their service would be recognised not just in words but in deeds and appeal to the conscience of the society to reciprocate favourably.
