Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Nelson Sailo, J.
Dr. Vijoho Sakhrie and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Nagaland, Represented By The Chief Secretary and ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/70/2023
Decided On : 13-02-2024
Regularization - Contract Medical Officers - Nagaland Health Services Rules, 2006 - Office Memorandums dated 04.08.2008 and 11.08.2016 - State of Karnataka -Vs-Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 - State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. -Vs- District Bar Association, Bandipora (2017) 3 SCC 410
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Medical Officers on contract basis, sought regularization of their services based on Office Memorandums dated 04.08.2008 and 11.08.2016. The Cabinet's decision to appoint fresh Doctors and Nurses due to the Covid-19 pandemic led to the revocation of the petitioners' regularization, resulting in the present case.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioners' services cannot be regularized dehors the constitutional scheme and the Nagaland Health Services Rules, 2006. The Court also noted that the petitioners, having completed more than 10 years of service, were not entitled to relief based on the legal principles established in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 and subsequent judgments.
Issues: The issues revolved around the regularization of the petitioners' contract services, the Cabinet's decision in light of the Covid-19 pandemic, and the applicability of the Office Memorandums and legal principles to the petitioners' case.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioners' services cannot be regularized outside the constitutional scheme and the Nagaland Health Services Rules, 2006. The Court also found that the petitioners, having completed more than 10 years of service, were not entitled to relief based on the legal principles established in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 and subsequent judgments.
Final Decision: The writ petition was found to be without merit and dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. I. Imchen, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Moa Imchen, learned Senior Govt. Counsel for all the respondents.
2. Claiming to have a common cause of action, the nine (9) writ petitioners have joined hands in filing the instant writ petition. The petitioners were appointed as Medical Officers on contract basis for a period of one (1) year or till the post is filled up through Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC). Their services were thereafter extended from time to time and they are continuing as such till date.
3. After serving for more than four (4) years on contract basis, the Health & Family Welfare Department vide Notification dated 04.09.2017 constituted a committee to conduct a suitability test for regularization of contract services of 11 contract Doctors under the Health & Family Welfare Department, which included the present writ petitioners as well. Suitability test was conducted on 06.09.2017 and all those who participated for the test were declared to be qualified. The Department of Health & Family Welfare then submitted the Meeting Minutes dated 08.09.2017 along with the score sheet obtained by the contract Doctors to the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department for onward submission to the Screening Committee for further necessary action. Thereafter, the Screening Committee which held its meeting on 13.10.2017 recommended regularization of the contract Doctors and for necessary follow up action vide Memorandum dated 17.10.2017.
4. According to the petitioners, they qualified in the suitability test conducted as per the Office Memorandum dated 04.08.2008 and on being recommended by the Screening Committee, the matter was submitted to the Cabinet for approval. The petitioners contend that the process of their regularization proceeded on the basis of the Office Memorandums dated 04.08.2008 and 11.08.2016, which provides for regularization of those contract employees who have completed three (3) years of continuous service and that the petitioners have all completed more than three (3) years of contract service. However, despite the above position since the petitioners were not regularized in service, they approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 172(K)/2018 with a prayer for a direction to dispose of their representation for regularization. The writ petition was disposed of vide Order dated 04.09.2018 with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of their representation in consonance with the Office Memorandum dated 04.08.2008 within a time frame of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the Order.
5. However, while the case of the petitioners was pending for regularization, the unprecedented Covid-19 pandemic struck the world including the State of Nagaland and the Govt. of Nagaland was compelled to make emergency policy decision to deal with the pandemic situation in the State especially with regard to the Health & Family Welfare Department. Accordingly, the Cabinet took a decision to appoint fresh Doctors and Nurses vide its decision dated 11.06.2020 while also deciding to create new post, recruitment and condonation of age as one (1) time relaxation in view of the prevailing pandemic situation. The Cabinet also decided to regularize the services of 19 serving contract Medical Officers under Serial No. 7 of Agenda No. 1. It also decided to regularize 27 existing Medical Officers who were engaged by the Health & Family Welfare Department for a period of one (1) year under Serial No. 8 of Agenda No. 1. However, an agitation was staged by the National Health Mission (NHM) against the regularization of the 27 Doctors which persuaded the Cabinet to revoke its decision to regularize the services of the existing contractual employees as well as the new appointees in its meeting held on 23.06.2020. The decision was conveyed to the Health & Family Welfare Department by the Cabinet Secr
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the regularization of contract services must adhere to the constitutional scheme and relevant rules, and the length of service alone does not ....
The court ruled that contract employees with over ten years of service against sanctioned posts are entitled to regularization, emphasizing the need for fair recruitment processes and age relaxation ....
The judgment emphasized the importance of adherence to the Office Memorandum and the need for the respondent authorities to communicate the fate of the representations filed by the petitioners within....
In cases of long, continuous service, employees serving in irregular capacities may be regularized despite initial procedural discrepancies, especially in the absence of valid recruitment processes.
Employees appointed on a contractual basis do not have an inherent right to regularization, especially when their appointments are not against sanctioned posts, as established by the Supreme Court in....
The court established that long-term service and existing vacancies can warrant regularization, even if initial appointments were irregular, provided the employees meet certain criteria.
Regularization of services for employees who have served for over ten years is a right that must be considered by the state, provided there are no valid objections, and the state must adhere to its o....
Regularization of services must be from the date of initial appointment for similarly situated employees to avoid discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
