Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 737 (GAU)

Bendangyanger v. State of Nagaland

2020-11-02

SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

body2020
JUDGMENT : Songkhupchung Serto, J. 1. This is a writ petition challenging the Advertisement dated 16.07.2020, issued by the Principal Director of Health & Family Welfare, Nagaland wherein applications were invited for recruitment against newly created 21 posts of AYUSH Medical Officers under the Department of Health & Family Welfare through the Departmental Recruitment Board; and the Notification No. DHFW(A)/COVID-19/Appt-13/17/2020/269(Pt)/263, dated 05.07.2020 only in respect of recruitment to AYUSH Medical Officers, particularly, relating to the weightage given to work experience; and the Corrigendum No. DHFW-5/COVID-19/A-MO/2019-2020/5052-55, dated 17.07.2020; and the Advertisement No. DHFW-1/534/COVID-19/2019-5116-121, dated 04.08.2020 so far as the provision given therein which provided for weightage to work experience (30% marks out of 100) in respect of the post of AYUSH Medical Officer in concern; and praying for a direction directing the respondents to fill up the post of AYUSH Medical Officers through a recruitment process involving written examination and interview, to be conducted by the NPSC. 2. Heard Mr. I. Longjem, learned counsel for the petitioners assisted by Ms. Lhousino and Esther, learned counsels and also heard Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents. Before I go into the rival submissions of the parties it would be appropriate to lay down the facts and circumstances which led to the filing of this writ petition briefly, (i) In order to deal with the health concerned of the people of Nagaland arising of the pandemic COVID-19 effectively, the State Government created a number of post of Doctors, nurses and technicians including 21 post of AYUSH Medical Officers vide notification dated 02.07.2020, and thereafter framed guidelines to be followed in the recruitment of the medical personnel and the same was notified in the Notification No. HF W(A)CO VID-19/Appt-13/17/2020, dated 05.07.2020, by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Health & Family Welfare Department. The notification is reproduced here below; "Government of Nagaland Health & Family Welfare Department Nagaland: Kohima Notification Dated, Kohima the 5th July, 2020. No. HFW(A)COVID-19/Appt-13/17/2020/On the recommendation of the Cabinet vide No. CAB-2/2013 dated, Kohima, the 25th June, 2020, the Governor of Nagaland is pleased to frame the following basic guidelines for recruitment and service condition of the Medical Officers, Nurses, Technicians and other Para-medical staff as under;- 1. All the newly created posts to be filled up by the H&FW Department within a month's time with proper advertisement. All the newly created posts to be filled up by the H&FW Department within a month's time with proper advertisement. While filling up the posts, due weightage should be given to the mark obtained by the candidates in the qualifying degree of the University/Medical College and years of work experienced. The interview panel to include independent experts from outside the state. 2. These appointment will be temporary/fixed and regular recruitment shall be conducted through a special NPSC recruitment drive for all post coming under the purview of NPSC. 3. The existing reservation of posts for the Backward Tribes shall be followed wherever applicable. 4. The standard condition of No Study Leave, requirement to serve any part of the State assigned by the Department, signing of the bond not to engage in private practice etc. shall apply to such temporary engagement. 5. As per the recommendation of the Manpower Rationalization Committee (MRC), the Department to fill up 50% of the post of Staff Nurse from queue of former Nursing Diploma/Graduates and remaining 50% to be filled up through direct recruitment and open competition. For direct recruitment posts, the existing reservation of posts for the Backwards Tribes shall be followed wherever applicable. 6. With a view to give equal opportunity to all and to promote merit, the queue system of recruitment for Staff Nurse will be discontinued in due course. 7. The earlier decision of the Cabinet to regularize the services of the existing contractual employees and new appointees stands revoked in view of the legal opinion given. Sd/- (Ahola Those, IAS) Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Nagaland." (ii) On 16.07.2020, Directorate of Health & Family Welfare, Government of Nagaland through an Advertisement No. DHFW-5/COVID-19/A-MO/2019-2020/5044-47, dated 16.07.2020, invited applications for recruitment to the newly created post of 21 AYUSH Medical Officers on temporary basis through Departmental Recruitment Board in the manner prescribed therein. The advertisement is reproduced here below; "Government of Nagaland Directorate of Health & Family Welfare Department Nagaland: Kohima Advertisement Dated, Kohima the 16.07.2020. No. DHF-5/COVID-19/A-MO/2019-2020/5044-47 :: In pursuance to Notification No. HFW(A)COVID-19/Appt-13/17/2020(Pt)/263, dated 2nd July 2020, applications are invited for recruitment against newly created posts on Temporary Basis under the Department of Health & Family Welfare through the Department Recruitment Board, in the manner prescribed below; 1. Details of Posts; Name of the Post No. of Post Salary (fixed) Ayush Medical Officer 21 Rs. Details of Posts; Name of the Post No. of Post Salary (fixed) Ayush Medical Officer 21 Rs. 70925/- or Rs.75175/-for Non-Specialist and Specialist respectively 2. The Terms and Conditions and Prescribed Format of Application can be download from the department web site: naga health, nagaland. gov.in. 3. Last date of Submission of Application shall be 25th July, 2020. Duly filled application in PDF format along with requisite supporting documents should be submitted through email to:- hfw.recruitment2020@gmail.com. NB: - No Application Form will be issued from the Office. - Incomplete application, if submitted will be rejected summarily. List of rejected application will be published in the office Notice Board. Sd/- (Dr. Vizolie Suokhrie) Principal Director." (iii). The said advertisement was also published in the local dailies. On the very next day i.e. on 17.7.2020, the Directorate of Health & Family Welfare issued the following corrigendum; "Government of Nagaland Directorate of Health & Family Welfare Department Nagaland: Kohima Corrigendum Dated, Kohima 17.07.2020. No. DHF/COVTD-19/2019-2020:: In connection with Advertisement dated 17th July, 2020, on the upcoming recruitment drive for various posts, the following corrections are hereby made for the under mentioned posts and read as follows; .......................... B. For the post of Ayush Mo: 1. Distribution of Marks; Distribution of Marks (a) Marks-obtained in University Examination (b) Possession of Higher Qualification -P.G. Diploma - P.G. Degree - Post Doctoral Degree (c) work experienced @ 2 points per year served d) viva-voce Total Marks Maximum Mark 50 - 3 6 10 30 10 100 NB: a) In case of multiple university examination held in the given course, average of marks obtained in all examinations shall be arrived at all allocation of marks. b) Candidate possessing more than one additional qualification, the highest degree shall be considered for allotting marks.. c) All documents to be self attested by very applicant. Sd/- (Dr. Vizolie Suokhrie) Principal Director." The same was also published in the local newspapers. (iv) By another Advertisement No. DHFW-1-534/COVID-19/2019-2020/5116-21, dated 04.08.2020, issued by the Directorate of Health & Family Welfare, Nagaland, applications were invited for filing up a number of post of medical personnel and in that distribution of marks for recruitment to Junior Specialist, Medical Officer, Junior Dental Surgeon & AYUSH Medical Officers was given as follows; "b. Distribution of Marks: -For Junior Specialist/Medical Officer/Junior Dental Surgeon/AYUSH Medical Officer. Distribution of Marks Maximum Mark Point Earmarked 1) Marks obtained in University Examination 2) Possession of Higher Qualification - Graduate (0) -PG Degree Junior Specialist 38 20 (0) (0) Medical Officer/Junior Dental Surgeon/ Ayush Medical officer 38 20 (5) Geon/ - PG Degree -Post doctoral degree 3) Work experienced @ 2 points per year Served 4) Viva –voce Junior Specialist (10) (20) 30 12 Medical officer /Junior dental Sur- AYUSH Medical Officer (10) (20) 30 12 Total 100 100 (v). Thereafter, on 07.08.2020, the Directorate of Health & Family Welfare through newspaper publication issued the following Corrigendum; "Government of Nagaland Directorate of Health & Family Welfare Department Nagaland: Kohima Dated, Kohima the......th Aug, 2020. Corrigendum No. DHFW/COVID-19/2019-2020:: In continuation of this Office Advertisement vide No. DHFW-5/COVID-19/JDS/2019-2020/5039-43, dated 16.07.2020 and DHFW-5/COVID-19/2019-2020/A-MO/5044-47, dated 16.07.2020 regarding appointment on temporary basis to the posts of Junior Dental Surgeon and AYUSH Medical Officers, the Salary mentioned under Details of Posts/Engagement Salary should be read as under and not as published earlier. Pay and Allowance Name of Post Pay level Pay Matrix Junior Dental Surgeon 13 56100-177500 AYUSH Medical officers 13 56100-177500 NB: a. Non Practicing Allowance and Special Pay for doctors will be admissible as per existing Government Policy. b. No sundry service benefits except for the causal leave (12 days), shall be admissible during the course of 12 months contingency engagement. 2. With regard to Advertisement vide No. DHFW-1-534/COVID-19/2019-2020/5116-121, dated 4th August 2020 regarding recruitment to the posts of Junior Specialist, Medical Officer, Research Scientist & Lab. Technician for BSL Labs, it should be read as "appointment on temporary basis" under and not as published earlier. Sd/- (Dr. Vizolie Suokhrie) Principal Director." 3. Following the issuance of the advertisement and the corrigendum the petitioners also applied for the posts and appeared in the interview and thereafter on 25.08.2020 filed the instant writ petition challenging the advertisement and the related notifications and praying as stated above. 4. Mr. Longjem, learned counsel of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are qualified degree and post-graduate degree holders and are eligible for the post advertised but they are those who do not have much working experience. So on coming across the advertisement which is a rare happening they also submitted their application forms. 4. Mr. Longjem, learned counsel of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are qualified degree and post-graduate degree holders and are eligible for the post advertised but they are those who do not have much working experience. So on coming across the advertisement which is a rare happening they also submitted their application forms. But after having gone through the advertisement, the corrigendum and the related notifications more carefully they came to know that the recruitment process is against the existing law and, the terms and conditions for recruitment to the post of AYUSH Medical Officer are arbitrary and discriminatory. Therefore, they are before this Court challenging the same and praying for a direction directing the respondents to conduct the examination through NPSC. Elaborating the case of the petitioners, Mr. Longjem submitted that as per the Notification No. PAR-B/6/2008(Pt), dated 30.08.2011, issued by the P&AR Department (Personnel 'B' Branch), for recruitment to any posts under the Government of Nagaland, having a pay scale above Rs. 5200-20200/- p.m with grade pay of RS. 2800/- p.m. it should be through NPSC only. Therefore, the recruitment to the post of AYUSH Medical Officer which has the pay scale of Rs. 56100-177500/- p.m. can only be through NPSC. The learned counsel in support of his submission placed a copy of the said notification which is reproduced as follows; "Government of Nagaland Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department (Personnel 'B' Branch) Notification Dated, Kohima the 30.08.2011 No. PAR-B/6/2008(Pt.) :: In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 318 and proviso of Article 320(3) of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Nagaland is pleased to make the following rules further to amend the Nagaland Public Service Commissioner (Chairman, Members & Staff) Regulations, 2008, namely;- 1.(1) These rules may be called the Nagaland Public Service Commission (Chairman, Members & Staff) Regulations, 2008 may be substituted by the following viz. Regulation 15(1): It shall not be necessary for the Commission to be consulted in matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and posts, or suitability of the candidates for such appointments in the following cases, namely:- (i) When an appointment is to be made by an authority other than the Governor to a post on a scale of pay the minimum of which is less than Rs. 5200-20200/- per month with Grade Pay of Rs. 5200-20200/- per month with Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/- per month, where direct recruitment can be made as per the service rules concerned. (ii) The sub-clause (i) of this Regulation is not applicable to recruitment to the posts or Stenographers, Police, including Police under Vigilance Commission, and school teachers, for which the Departments concerned will follow their respective recruitment rules/procedures, (iii) Further, the sub-clause (i) of this Regulation does not debar the Government from directing, in consultation with the Commission, the recruitment to a particular service or post shall be made in consultation with the Commission. Sd/-Amardeep S. Bhatia Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Nagaland." The learned counsel further submitted that when a statute provides a thing to be done in a certain manner it must be done in that manner alone. As such, in this case also, since the statue makes it mandatory to consult the NPSC, the same should have been followed. But, since it has not been followed the advertisement and the guidelines prescribed for the recruitment deserves to be quashed and set aside. In support of his submission, the leaned counsel referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Hussein Ghadially & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 425 , para 21.3. The relevant paragraph is reproduced here below; "21.3. Thirdly, because if the Statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner alone. All other modes or methods of doing that thing must be deemed to have been prohibited. That proposition of law first was stated in Taylor v. Taylor (1876) 1 Ch. D 426 and adopted later by the Judicial Committee in Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253 and by this Court in a series of judgments including those in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh & Anr. v. State of Vindhya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 322 , State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh and Ors. AIR 1964 SC 358 , Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad & Ors. 1999 (8) SC 266, Dhananjaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka 2001 (4) SCC 9 and Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. V. Essar Power Ltd. 2008 (4) SCC 755 . AIR 1964 SC 358 , Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad & Ors. 1999 (8) SC 266, Dhananjaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka 2001 (4) SCC 9 and Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. V. Essar Power Ltd. 2008 (4) SCC 755 . The principle stated in the above decisions applies to the cases at hand not because there is any specific procedure that is prescribed by the Statute for grant of approval but because if the approval could be granted by anyone in the police hierarchy the provision specifying the authority for grant of such approval might as well not have been enacted." 5. Mr. Longjem, after referring to the Para-1 of the Notification dated 05.07.2020 and Para-b, of the notification dated 17.07.2020, which are already reproduced herein above submitted that the allotment of 2 marks for each year of service/experience and that too up to 30 marks is arbitrary and discriminatory, therefore, is violative of Article-14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. To reinforce his submission the learned counsel submitted further that the minimum eligible qualification for appointment to the post of AYUSH Medical Officer is graduation but if 2 marks for each year of experience that too up to 30 marks is given to those who have had working experience, the fresh graduates or post graduates like the petitioners stands no chance in the recruitment test. The learned counsel also submitted that the recruitment process has already put those who had the working experience to too much advantage vis--vis the fresh graduates, therefore, it is discriminatory and unreasonable. Mr. Longjem also submitted that the whole exercise appears to be to facilitate appointment of the AYUSH Doctors who have been working on ad hoc or contract basis in the Government and thereby perpetuate the illegality in the recruitment process. The learned counsel, then, submitted further that the weightage given to ad hoc or contract employees over new applicants is not permissible. He also went on to add that, unless appointment to any government post is in, consistence with the Constitutional Scheme, the same would not confer any right on the appointee in spite of long years of service. As such, the guide line for allotment of marks deserves to be quashed and set aside. In support of his submission, Mr. He also went on to add that, unless appointment to any government post is in, consistence with the Constitutional Scheme, the same would not confer any right on the appointee in spite of long years of service. As such, the guide line for allotment of marks deserves to be quashed and set aside. In support of his submission, Mr. Longjem referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of State of Jharkhand Vs. Bijay Kumar, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1446 , para-13 & 14. He also referred to another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Man Singh Vs. Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, reported in (2009) 11 SCC 448 , para-7, 8 & 9 and also another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Secy. State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi & Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , para-43 & 45. The relevant paragraphs of the judgments mentioned above are reproduced here below one after the other; (i). State of Jharkhand Vs. Bijay Kumar, para-13 & 14. "13. This Court in its order dated 23.7.2003, although opined that they had no right to continue in service, issued some directions evidently in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The said order which was to be kept confined only to the appellants thereof, was reiterated by this court in its order dated 2-12-2003. 14. It may be true that while Abhay Kumar and others approached this Court aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 16.2.2004 of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, this Court, in its order dated 10.4.2006 intended to resolve the issue finally. It was in that situation opined that the right to be selected cannot continue indefinitely. This Court dealt with the grievances of those employees whose services have been terminated in the year 1998". (ii). Man Singh Vs. Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal & Ors., para- 7, 8 & 9. "7. The Appellant, indisputably, had been appointed on periodical basis. He might have continued to work as a Peon for a long time but by reason thereof, he did not acquire any indefeasible right to become a permanent employee of the department. 8. Regularization of services, as is well-known, is impermissible in law. "7. The Appellant, indisputably, had been appointed on periodical basis. He might have continued to work as a Peon for a long time but by reason thereof, he did not acquire any indefeasible right to become a permanent employee of the department. 8. Regularization of services, as is well-known, is impermissible in law. Though belatedly respondents had taken steps to fill up the existing vacancies in terms of the recruitment rules and upon following the constitutional scheme of equality as adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 9. Contention of the appellant that as he has been working for a long time, should have been given preference over said Shri Mohan Lal, in our considered opinion, cannot be accepted. In Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 ], a Constitution Bench of this Court has laid down the law in the following terms: "43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. The High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularisation, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because an employee had continued under cover of an order of the court, which we have described as "litigious employment" in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates." (iii). Secy. State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3) & Others, para-43 & 45. "43. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates." (iii). Secy. State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3) & Others, para-43 & 45. "43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because, an employee had continued under cover of an order of Court, which we have described as 'litigious employment' in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. 45. While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularized or made permanent, courts are swayed by the fact that the concerned person has worked for some time and in some cases for a considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with eyes open. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain-not at arms length - since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. But on that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. If the court were to void a contractual employment of this nature on the ground that the parties were not having equal bargaining power, that too would not enable the court to grant any relief to that employee. A total embargo on such casual or temporary employment is not possible, given the exigencies of administration and if imposed, would only mean that some people who at least get employment temporarily, contractually or casually, would not be getting even that employment when securing of such employment brings at least some succor to them. After all, innumerable citizens of our vast country are in search of employment and one is not compelled to accept a casual or temporary employment if one is not inclined to go in for such an employment. It is in that context that one has to proceed on the basis that the employment was accepted fully knowing the nature of it and the consequences flowing from it. In other words, even while accepting the employment, the person concerned knows the nature of his employment. It is not an appointment to a post in the real sense of the term. The claim acquired by him in the post in which he is temporarily employed or the interest in that post cannot be considered to be of such a magnitude as to enable the giving up of the procedure established, for making regular appointments to available posts in the services of the State. The argument that since one has been working for some time in the post, it will not be just to discontinue him, even though he was aware of the nature of the employment when he first took it up, is not one that would enable the jettisoning of the procedure established by law for public employment and would have to fail when tested on the touchstone of constitutionality and equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India." 6. The third limb of the petitioners' case is that though the advertisement mentioned that the engagement shall be for a period of 1 (one) year and the persons appointed through this recruitment drive shall have no right for regularization in service on any ground whatsoever but it also provides that if their services are required beyond the period of 1 year, Finance clearance shall be obtained this indicates that the service of the persons appointed through this recruitment process can be extended. Therefore, the recruitment process is a ploy to perpetuate illegal appointment of those who were engaged on ad hoc or contract which is not permissible under the law. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that written examination is the best way to determine merit of candidates, therefore, the present process of recruitment which does not include written examination is a sham and it should not be permitted in the interest of justice. In support of his submission, the learned counsel referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Lila Dhar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in (1981) 4 SCC 159 , para-4, 5 & 6. "4. The object of any process of selection for entry into a public service is to secure the best and the most suitable person for the job, avoiding patronage and favoritism. Selection based on merit, tested impartially and objectively, is the essential foundation of any useful and efficient public service. So, open competitive examination has come to be accepted almost universally as the gateway to public services". "The ideal in recruitment is to do away with unfairness(3)". "Competitive examinations were the answer to the twin problems represented by democracy and the requirements of good administration. They were the means by which equality of opportunity was to be united with efficiency.. By this means favoritism was to be excluded and the goal of securing the best man for every job was to be achieved(4)". "open competitive examinations are a peculiarly democratic institution. Any qualified person may come forward. His relative competence for appointment is determined by a neutral, disinterested body on the basis of objective evidence supplied by the candidate himself. No one has "pull"; everyone stands on his own feet. The system is not only highly democratic it is fair and equitable to every competitor. Any qualified person may come forward. His relative competence for appointment is determined by a neutral, disinterested body on the basis of objective evidence supplied by the candidate himself. No one has "pull"; everyone stands on his own feet. The system is not only highly democratic it is fair and equitable to every competitor. The same rules govern, the same procedures apply, the same yardstick is used to test competence.. 5. How should the competitive examination be devised? The Kothari Committee on Recruitment Policy and Selection methods in their report said: "A system of recruitment almost totally dependent on assessment of a person's academic knowledge and skills, as distinct from ability to deal with pressing problems of economic and social development, with people, and with novel situations cannot serve the needs of today, much less of tomorrow.. We venture to suggest that our recruitment procedures should be such that we can select candidates who can not only assimilate knowledge and sift material to understand the ramifications of a situation or a problem but have the potential to develop an original or innovative approach to the solution of problems". It is now well recognised that while a written examination assesses a candidate's knowledge and intellectual ability, an interview test is valuable to assess a candidate's overall intellectual and personal qualities. While a written examination has certain distinct advantage over the interview test there are yet no written tests which can evaluate a candidate's initiative, alertness, resourcefulness, dependableness, cooperativeness, capacity for clear and logical presentation, effectiveness, in discussion, effectiveness in meeting and dealing with others, adaptability, judgment, ability to make decision, ability to lead, intellectual and moral integrity. Some of these qualities may be evaluated, perhaps with some degree of error, by an interview test, much depending on the constitution of the interview Board. O. Glenn Stahl in his Public Personnel Administration points out: "Any form of written test possesses certain administrative advantages over the oral and performance types. The written form is much easier and cheaper to administer. It can be given to a large number of individuals at the same time, thus conserving the time of the examiners. O. Glenn Stahl in his Public Personnel Administration points out: "Any form of written test possesses certain administrative advantages over the oral and performance types. The written form is much easier and cheaper to administer. It can be given to a large number of individuals at the same time, thus conserving the time of the examiners. As a general rule it is easier to evaluate objectively, and the technical proficiency demanded in rating is usually, although not always, less.-The oral test has long served as a basic selection tool in private employment but has been more slowly accepted in the public field. This conservatism arises out of three considerations: (1) the difficulty of developing valid and reliable oral tests; (2) the difficulty of securing a reviewable record of an oral test; and (3) public suspicion of the oral as a channel for the exertion of political influence through the destruction of anonymity. Despite these acknowledged disadvantages, however, orals have been used increasingly in public personnel testing and have become important instruments wherever tests of personal attributes are considered essential. As we have noted no satisfactory written tests have yet been devised for measuring such personal characteristics as initiative, ingenuity and ability to elicit cooperation, many of which are of prime importance. When properly employed, the oral test today deserves a place in the battery used by the technical examiner.. The general principle is that resort should never be had to an oral if the relevant factor to be tested can be measured at some other point in the examining process. The reason is that the reliability of the oral, even under the best of conditions, tends to be lower than that of the well designed written test. The oral test should be confined, then, to the evaluation of relevant traits which cannot be measured in any other way" (p. 92). In the United Nations Hand Book on Civil Service Laws and Practice it is said: ".......the written papers permit an assessment of culture and intellectual competence. The interview permits an assessment of qualities of character which written papers ignore; it attempts to assess the man himself and not his intellectual abilities". 6. Thus, the written examination assesses the man's intellect and the interview test the man himself and "the twain shall meet" for a proper selection. The interview permits an assessment of qualities of character which written papers ignore; it attempts to assess the man himself and not his intellectual abilities". 6. Thus, the written examination assesses the man's intellect and the interview test the man himself and "the twain shall meet" for a proper selection. If both written examination and interview test are to be essential features of proper selection, the question may arise as to the weight to be attached respectively to them. In the case of admission to a college, for instance, where the candidate's personality is yet to develop and it is too early to identify the personal qualities for which greater importance may have to be attached in later life, greater weight has per force to be given to performance in the written examination. The importance to be attached to the interview test must be minimal. That was what was decided by this Court in Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu, Ajay Hasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & ors. etc., (supra) and other cases. On the other hand, in the case of services to which recruitment has necessarily to be made from persons of mature personality, interview test may be the only way, subject to basic and essential academic and professional requirements being satisfied. To subject such persons to a written examination may yield unfruitful and negative results, apart from its being an act or cruelty to those persons. There are, of course, many services to which recruitment is made from younger candidates whose personalities are on the threshold of development and who show signs of great promise, and the discerning may in an interview test, catch a glimpse of the future personality. In the case of such services, where sound selection must combine academic ability with personality promise, some weight has to be given, though not much too great weight, to the interview test. There cannot be any rule of thumb regarding the precise weight to be given. It must vary from service to service according to the requirements of the service, the minimum qualifications prescribed, the age group from which the selection is to be made, the body to which the task of holding the interview test is proposed to be entrusted and a host of other factors. It is a matter for determination by experts. It is a matter for research. It is a matter for determination by experts. It is a matter for research. It is not for Courts to pronounce upon it unless exaggerated weight has been given with proven or obvious oblique motives. The Kothari Committee also suggested that in view of the obvious importance of the subject, it may be examined in detail by the Research Unit of the Union of Public Service Commission." 7. Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents submitted at the very outset that the 21 posts of AYUSH Medical Officer were created by the Government in view of the concern for the public health arising out of the sudden spread of Corona virus infection around the world including Nagaland. And the recruitment process was also undertaken to meet the sudden and urgent need which is unprecedented. The learned Government Advocate, thereafter, submitted that the recruitment is for one year only and the Government has no intention to extend the same. It is also submitted that in this pandemic situation it is not possible to conduct written examination and other methods of interview through NPSC. Therefore, the Government took this exceptional decision to meet the exceptional circumstances. As such, the recruitment process need no interference. Ms. V. Suokhrie also submitted that anyone appointed through this recruitment process will not be regularized and that has been made very clear in the terms and conditions mentioned in the Advertisement dated 16.7.2020. Therefore apprehension of the petitioners is unfounded and baseless. She also emphasised that the health of the citizens is most important and there cannot be anything more important then that, and it is for that reason that such extra ordinary steps have been taken by the Government. In support of her submission, the learned Government Advocate referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2016) 6 SCC 408 , paragraphs 21, 22 and 27. The relevant paragraphs are given here below:- "21. Such a policy decision, when not found to be arbitrary or based on irrelevant considerations or mala fide or against any statutory provisions, does not call for any interference by the Courts in exercise of power of judicial review. The relevant paragraphs are given here below:- "21. Such a policy decision, when not found to be arbitrary or based on irrelevant considerations or mala fide or against any statutory provisions, does not call for any interference by the Courts in exercise of power of judicial review. This principle of law is ingrained in stone which is stated and restated time and again by this Court on numerous occasions. In Jal Mahal Resorts (P) Ltd. v. K.P. Sharma, the Court underlined the principle in the following manner: 116. From this, it is clear that although the courts are expected very often to enter into the technical and administrative aspects of the matter, it has its own limitations and in consonance with the theory and principle of separation of powers, reliance at least to some extent to the decisions of the State authorities, specially if it is based on the opinion of the experts reflected from the project report prepared by the technocrats, accepted by the entire hierarchy of the State administration, acknowledged, accepted and approved by one Government after the other, will have to be given due credence and weightage. In spite of this if the court chooses to overrule the correctness of such administrative decision and merits of the view of the entire body including the administrative, technical and financial experts by taking note of hair splitting submissions at the instance of a PIL petitioner without any evidence in support thereof, the PIL petitioners shall have to be put to strict proof and cannot be allowed to function as an extraordinary and extra-judicial ombudsmen questioning the entire exercise undertaken by an extensive body which include administrators, technocrats and financial experts. In our considered view, this might lead to a friction if not collision among the three organs of the State and would affect the principle of governance ingrained in the theory of separation of powers. In fact, this Court in M.P. Oil Extraction v. State of M.P., (1997) 7 SCC 592 at p. 611 has unequivocally observed that: "41. The power of judicial review of the executive and legislative action must be kept within the bounds of constitutional scheme so that there may not be any occasion to entertain misgivings about the role of judiciary in out stepping its limit by unwarranted judicial activism being very often talked of in these days. The power of judicial review of the executive and legislative action must be kept within the bounds of constitutional scheme so that there may not be any occasion to entertain misgivings about the role of judiciary in out stepping its limit by unwarranted judicial activism being very often talked of in these days. The democratic set-up to which the polity is so deeply committed cannot function properly unless each of the three organs appreciate the need for mutual respect and supremacy in their respective fields." 117. However, we hasten to add and do not wish to be misunderstood so as to infer that howsoever gross or abusive may be an administrative action or a decision which is writ large on a particular activity at the instance of the State or any other authority connected with it, the Court should remain a passive, inactive and a silent spectator. What is sought to be emphasised is that there has to be a boundary line or the proverbial "laxman rekha" while examining the correctness of an administrative decision taken by the State or a central authority after due deliberation and diligence which do not reflect arbitrariness or illegality in its decision and execution. If such equilibrium in the matter of governance gets disturbed, development is bound to be slowed down and disturbed specially in an age of economic liberalisation wherein global players are also involved as per policy decision." 22. Minimal interference is called for by the Courts, in exercise of judicial review of a Government policy when the said policy is the outcome of deliberations of the technical experts in the fields inasmuch as Courts are not well-equipped to fathom into such domain which is left to the discretion of the execution. It was beautifully explained by the Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India[4] and reiterated in Federation of Railway Officers Assn. v. Union of India[5] in the following words: "12. In examining a question of this nature where a policy is evolved by the Government judicial review thereof is limited. When policy according to which or the purpose for which discretion is to be exercised is clearly expressed in the statute, it cannot be said to be an unrestricted discretion. On matters affecting policy and requiring technical expertise the court would leave the matter for decision of those who are qualified to address the issues. When policy according to which or the purpose for which discretion is to be exercised is clearly expressed in the statute, it cannot be said to be an unrestricted discretion. On matters affecting policy and requiring technical expertise the court would leave the matter for decision of those who are qualified to address the issues. Unless the policy or action is inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws or arbitrary or irrational or abuse of power, the court will not interfere with such matters." Limits of the judicial review were again reiterated, pointing out the same position by the Courts in England, in the case of G. Sundarrajan v. Union of India in the following manner: "15.1. Lord MacNaughten in Vacher & Sons Ltd. v. London Society of Compositors (1913 AC 107 : (1911-13) All ER Rep 241 (HL) has stated: "... Some people may think the policy of the Act unwise and even dangerous to the community.... But a judicial tribunal has nothing to do with the policy of any Act which it may be called upon to interpret. That may be a matter for private judgment. The duty of the court, and its only duty, is to expound the language of the Act in accordance with the settled rules of construction." 15.2. In Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service: 1985 AC 374 : (1984)3 WLR 1174 : (1984) 3 All ER 935 (HL), it was held that it is not for the courts to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in fulfillment of that policy are fair. They are concerned only with the manner in which those decisions have been taken, if that manner is unfair, the decision will be tainted with what Lord Diplock labels as "procedural impropriety". This Court in M.P. Oil Extraction v. State of M.P. (1997) 7 SCC 592 held that unless the policy framed is absolutely capricious, unreasonable and arbitrary and based on mere ipse dixit of the executive authority or is invalid in constitutional or statutory mandate, court's interference is not called for. Reference may also be made of the judgments of this Court in Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Admn.: (2001) 3 SCC 635 , Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. v. State of Uttaranchal: (2007) 8 SCC 418 and Delhi Bar Assn. v. Union of India (2008) 13 SCC 628 . Reference may also be made of the judgments of this Court in Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Admn.: (2001) 3 SCC 635 , Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. v. State of Uttaranchal: (2007) 8 SCC 418 and Delhi Bar Assn. v. Union of India (2008) 13 SCC 628 . We are, therefore, firmly of the opinion that we cannot sit in judgment over the decision taken by the Government of India, NPCIL, etc. for setting up of KKNPP at Kudankulam in view of the Indo-Russian Agreement." 27. The raison d'etre of discretionary power is that it promotes decision maker to respond appropriately to the demands of particular situation. When the decision making is policy based judicial approach to interfere with such decision making becomes narrower. In such cases, in the first instance, it is to be examined as to whether policy in question is contrary to any statutory provisions or is discriminatory/arbitrary or based on irrelevant considerations. If the particular policy satisfies these parameters and is held to be valid, then the only question to be examined is as to whether the decision in question is in conformity with the said policy." The learned Government Advocate also referred to another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of City and Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala & Ors., reported in (2009) 1 SCC 168 , paragraph 29. The relevant paragraph is given below:- "29. In our opinion, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is duty bound to take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration and decide for itself even in the absence of proper affidavits from the State and its instrumentalities as to whether any case at all is made out requiring its interference on the basis of the material made available on record. There is nothing like issuing an ex-parte writ of Mandamus, order or direction in a public law remedy. Further, while considering validity of impugned action or inaction the court will not consider itself restricted to the pleadings of the State but would be free to satisfy itself whether any case as such is made out by a person invoking its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution." Lastly, the learned Government Advocate referred to the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Ashim Chakraborty Vs. Ashok Chakraborty & Anr., reported in 2012 (2) GLT 454, paragraph-12. The relevant paragraph is given here below:- ".............The petitioner should have a legal right to compel the authority or the person against whom he seeks the issue of the writ of mandamus to perform his public duty. He should have legal right to compel performance of the public duty casts on the opponent. Thus, he must have legal right to compel the authority concerned to perform his public duty or to refrain from doing something. To summarize, a writ of mandamus may be refused on any of the following grounds: (i) It cannot be issued for the enforcement of private duties; (ii) It cannot be issued for the enforcement of the obligations arising out of a contact; (iii) It cannot be issued against the private body or private individual if it is not entrusted with any public duty; (iv) The person or authority against whom the writ is sought to be issued must have some public duty to perform and the performance of the public duty by him must be imperative or mandatory and not discretionary; (v) If the duty is merely discretionary the writ of mandamus cannot be issued to enforce it. However, if the discretion is exercised arbitrarily or maliciously or without applying mind or on irrelevant consideration, the mandamus will lie (vi) It may be refused on the ground of laches or on the ground of unexplained delay; (vii) It may be refused on the ground of misstatement, suppression of material fact or for any other cogent ground." 8. Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Addl. Government Advocate, lastly submitted that, the petitioners, if they are aggrieved by any of the conditions mentioned in the Advertisement should have immediately submitted a representation to the authorities but, filed the writ petition instead, that too, after one month from the date the Advertisement was issued. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. 9. In reply, Mr. Imti Longjem, learned counsel of the petitioners submitted that the very basis of the respondents' case i.e. writ petition is not maintainable in view of the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 93(K)/2020 is misconceived. In fact what was decided in that case supports the case of the petitioners. Mr. 9. In reply, Mr. Imti Longjem, learned counsel of the petitioners submitted that the very basis of the respondents' case i.e. writ petition is not maintainable in view of the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 93(K)/2020 is misconceived. In fact what was decided in that case supports the case of the petitioners. Mr. Longjem further submitted that the guidelines given by the Government for recruitment to the post of AYUSH Doctors cannot supersede the NPSC rules wherein it has been provided that such post should be recruited only through NPSC. Mr. Longjem in answer to a query from Court submitted that after the last date of submission of forms candidates were short listed on 07.09.2020 and interview was held on 9th and 10th September, therefore, when the case was filed there was no delay and laches on the part of petitioners in the filing the writ petition. 10. Considered the submissions of the learned counsels and perused the documents submitted. In the advertisement for 21 posts of AYUSH Medical Officer published on 16.07.2020, the following terms and conditions were given; "Terms and Conditions for the Post of AYUSH Medical Officer 1. Duration of Engagement; a. The engagement shall be for a period of 1 (one) year. b. The engagement shall be liable to be terminated anytime with 1(one) month notice from either the employer or employee. c. Fiance clearance shall be obtained if their services are required beyond the said period. d. The appointees through this recruitment drive shall have no right to claim for regularization of the contingency service on any ground whatsoever. e. The selected candidate shall report to the respective Chief Medical Officer/Medical Superintendent within 7(seven) days from the date of issue of Appointment Order. Failure to join within the stipulated period will forfeit the engagement. 2. Engagement Salary; a. The salaries are fixed at Rs. 70925/- for Non Specialists and Rs. 75175/- for Specialists. b. No sundry service benefits, such as Non-practicing Allowance, Earned Leave etc. Save for the casual leave (12 days), shall be admissible during the course of 12 months contingency engagement. 3. Eligibility criteria a. Those who have resigned from contractual service without any valid reasons(s) during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis shall not be eligible to apply for this recruitment drive. b. No sundry service benefits, such as Non-practicing Allowance, Earned Leave etc. Save for the casual leave (12 days), shall be admissible during the course of 12 months contingency engagement. 3. Eligibility criteria a. Those who have resigned from contractual service without any valid reasons(s) during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis shall not be eligible to apply for this recruitment drive. b. Age as on 01.01.2020: -Minimum: 22(twenty two) years -Maximum : 32 (thirty two) years, relaxable by 5(five) years in case of candidate belonging to SC/ST or upto a maximum of 45 (forty five) years in case of serving contractual employee as per one-time relaxation of laid down norms by the State Government. b. Desired qualification; 1) Bachelor Degree of; BAMS-Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicines and Surgery BNYS-Bachelor of Naturopathic & Yogic Science BUMS-Bachelor of Unani Medicines and Surgery MSMS-Bachelor of Siddha Medicines and Surgery MHMS-Bachelor of Homoeopathic Medicines and Surgery 2) Post Graduate Degree Course (MD) (From of nay system) c. Recognition of qualification; From the recognized university under the- 1). Central Council of India Medicines, 1970(CCIM)-recognized the Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha Systems of Medicines. 2). Central Council of Homoeopathy recognizes, 1973 (CCH)-recognizes the Homoeopathy Systems of Medicines). Registration with State Council: The applicant must be registered with the State Board or its equivalent competent authority. 4. Mode of recruitment process; The merit/ranking will be on the basis of the following; a. Instead of Written examination, the merit shall be determined by aggregate marks obtained in different university examinations of Diploma or Graduate degree course. NB: a. In case of multiple university examinations held in the given course, average of marks obtained in all examination shall be arrived at for allocation of marks. b. Candidates possessing more than one additional qualification, the highest degree shall be considered for allotting marks. 3). Interview Panel shall include independent expert from outside the state. Reservations of Posts: The existing reservation of post for backward tribe, etc. Shall be followed wherever applicable. Other conditions; The following conditions will be obligatory for all selected candidates; a. Shall not be entitled for Study leave for a period of 2(two) years. b. Shall serve in any part of the state as assigned by the Department. c. Shall sign a bond not to engage in private practice. Shall be followed wherever applicable. Other conditions; The following conditions will be obligatory for all selected candidates; a. Shall not be entitled for Study leave for a period of 2(two) years. b. Shall serve in any part of the state as assigned by the Department. c. Shall sign a bond not to engage in private practice. d. The selected candidate shall report to the respective Chief Medical Officer/Medical Superintendent within 7(seven) days from the date of issue of the Appointment Order. Prescribed Format of Application: To be download from https://nagahealth. nagaland.gov.in/ Last date of submission of application by email: to hfw.recruitment2020@gmail.com on or before 25th July 2020. Sd/- (Dr. Vizolie Suokhrie) Principal Director." Under the terms and conditions given above, it is made clear that the engagement or appointment to the post of AYUSH Medical Officer is for a period of 1 year and the same is liable to be terminated any time with 1(one) month's notice from either the employer or the employee and; the appointees shall haven right to claim for regularisation of his or her service on any ground whatsoever. And, in case, the services of the appointees are required beyond the period of 1 year, Finance clearance has to be obtained. To repeat the terms and conditions makes it very clear that the appointment to be made as per the advertisement is only for a year and it can be extended only under exceptional circumstance or circumstances but the appointees shall have no right to claim regularisation. Therefore, the fear or apprehension of the petitioners, that anyone appointed from this recruitment process would be regularised, in my opinion, is unfounded. Further, taking into account the above stated terms and conditions, and the mode of recruitment and the guidelines given for the same, it appears that, the Government had taken the decision to create the 21 posts of AYUSH Medical Officer and to conduct the recruitment in the manner provided in the notifications is, to meet the need of the exceptional circumstances we are in due to the spread of COVID-19. It is for everyone to see that there is shortage of manpower in the Health & Family Welfare department, and that, our health facilities have been all along inadequate and not at all equip to deal with the present situation effectively. It is for everyone to see that there is shortage of manpower in the Health & Family Welfare department, and that, our health facilities have been all along inadequate and not at all equip to deal with the present situation effectively. At present, as per the newspaper reports, the number of persons infected by CO VID-19 in the State of Nagaland has reached 8,824 cases. The infection is still increasing and no one can say when the vaccine will be available. In short, we are going through unprecedented circumstances which may even proof to be catastrophic if not tackled efficiently and effectively. Therefore, such measures as taken by the Government, are not something unusual, in times such as we are in. What can be more precious and important than life itself, therefore, this Court is of the view that the Government is well within its domain to take such exceptional decision in the interest of the public at large. It does not mean that the right of the petitioners to face interview and to be selected have been totally taken away or denied. In fact, they are eligible and they have even participated in the interview as submitted by their learned counsel. The fact that they have participated in the recruitment process without any protest shows that the had accepted all the terms and conditions of the recruitment. Therefore, they can not now turn around and question the same when the game is over. Further, it appears that those certain criterias which are suitable and relevant for recruitment to such post have only been added to meet the exceptional circumstances. Ideally, inclusion of written test and other methods of selection should have been adopted or followed but as stated already we are in unprecedented circumstances, therefore, it would be unreasonable to expect adoption or following of the normal process of selection. 11. The main concern of the petitioners seems to be adopting of 2 marks for work experience of each year. To be able to tackle with the crisis that we are in certainly experience is required. There cannot be argument on the fact that longer years of practice gives one more experience. Therefore, I do not find the allocation of 2 marks for each year of experience unreasonable. To be able to tackle with the crisis that we are in certainly experience is required. There cannot be argument on the fact that longer years of practice gives one more experience. Therefore, I do not find the allocation of 2 marks for each year of experience unreasonable. In any case, as stated already, the recruitment drive is to meet an exceptional and unprecedented circumstance of our time and for a limited period. 12. Further, the contention of the petitioners that the post of AYUSH Medical Officer comes under the purview of NPSC therefore, the recruitment process adopted for the 21 posts is against the provision of a statue, in my view, has been taken care of by the guidelines issued by the Government which has been reproduced at the beginning of para-2 of this judgment. At para-2 of the Notification dated 05.07.2020 wherein the guidelines for recruitment of Medical Officers and Nurses have been given provides as follows; "2. These appointment will be temporary/fixed and regular recruitment shall be conducted through a special NPSC recruitment drive for all post coming under the purview of NPSC." This provision makes it amply clear that the present recruitment is for a short while and, regular recruitment for those posts which comes under the purview of NPSC will be conducted by the same commission in due course. Therefore, the petitioners and all eligible persons shall have their opportunity to appear in the exam to be conducted by the NPSC for the same posts, as per the recruitment rules and as and when it is held. As such, the question of violation of any statute does not arise. At the cost of repetition, but for the sake of clarity, under the principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of cases and in the judgment passed in the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2016)6 SCC 408 , the relevant paragraphs of which have already been reproduced at para-8 of the judgment as cited by the learned Government Advocate, I find no valid reason or reasons to interfere in the policy decision taken by the Government which in my opinion is appropriate to the circumstances we are in at the moment. As such, I am not inclined to interfere with the recruitment process already undertaken. As such, I am not inclined to interfere with the recruitment process already undertaken. However, keeping in view the constitutional scheme of recruitment to Government services, the respondents are directed to requisition the 21 post of AYUSH Medical Officer to the NPSC within 6(six) months from today so that NPSC may start taking steps for conducting regular recruitment as per rules and regular appointment to the posts are made immediately after expiry of the period of 1 (one) year from the date of issuance of the appointment orders in pursuance of the recruitment process already completed. With the above observations and conclusions made, and the directions given, the writ petition is disposed.