JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. Taka Masa, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sentilong, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. E. Thiba Phom, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been brought to the attention of this Court during the course of hearing that the Respondent Authorities are presently taking steps for going ahead with the interview for filling up of 124 posts of Nurses by way of regularization. 3. Mr. E. Thiba Phom, the learned Government Advocate who represents the State respondents had produced before this Court a para wise reply dated 29.08.2025 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of Nagaland. The same is kept on record and marked with the letter “X”. Mr. E. Thiba Phom, the learned Government Advocate submitted on instructions that an early resolution of the instant dispute would be in the interest of the State. This Court enquired with the learned Government Advocate, as to whether, the State would like to file any affidavit. The learned Government Advocate on instructions submitted that the document kept on record and marked with the letter “X” be considered as the stand of the Government of Nagaland and no affidavit would be filed. Taking into account the above, this Court takes up the instant Writ Petition for disposal at this stage. 4. The petitioners herein were appointed as Staff Nurses on temporary/contractual/ad hoc basis in the establishment of the Nagaland National Health Mission (NHM) and Nagaland Hospital Authority Kohima (NHAK). Some petitioners are employed as Staff Nurses in private hospitals. The petitioners claim that they have rendered healthcare services during the COVID pandemic. The grievances of the petitioners is that the Respondent Authorities have resorted actions to regularize 124 Staff Nurses who were appointed during the COVID pandemic thereby not only violating the rights of the petitioners under Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India, but also by resiling from the promises made on the basis of which the petitioners have rendered service during the COVID period by putting their lives at stake. 5. In the early part of 2020, the COVID Pandemic spread worldwide. 5. In the early part of 2020, the COVID Pandemic spread worldwide. The Cabinet of the State of Nagaland in its meeting held on 11.06.2020 after considering the proposal of the Health and Family Welfare Department and taking into account that there was shortage of Doctors and Nurses in comparison with the IPHS norms, which is 23% as against 50% in case of specialist doctors and 28% as against 75% in case of staff nurses as per the IPHS norms and that the Department was unable to provide required numbers of doctors in the district, reviewed the urgent requirement and decided to approve the proposal of the Health and Family Welfare Department for creation of various posts including creation of 143 posts of Staff Nurses to be deployed in all District Hospitals. The Cabinet further directed that this approval be a one-time relaxation of the laid down Rules and procedures for recruitment, regularization and condonation of age, and this one-time measure in view of the prevailing situation in the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic should not be treated as a precedent. This resulted in creation of 143 posts of Staff Nurses vide a Creation Order dated 26.06.2020. On 23.06.2020, another Cabinet decision was taken for creation of various posts. In the said decision, it was decided to create 78 posts of Staff Nurses for the Public Health Centers (PHC). Pursuant thereto, by a Creation Order dated 02.07.2020, 78 posts of Staff Nurses were created. At this stage, it is therefore relevant to take note of that vide the two Creation Orders altogether 221 posts of Staff Nurses were created. It is also relevant to observe that vide the above two Creation Orders alongwith another Creation Order dated 26.06.2020, altogether 390 posts were created and out of which 221 posts were for Staff Nurses. 6. Pursuant thereto, an advertisement was issued on 16.07.2020 for filling up of 110 posts of Staff Nurses stipulating also the manner in which the recruitment would be carried out. 6. Pursuant thereto, an advertisement was issued on 16.07.2020 for filling up of 110 posts of Staff Nurses stipulating also the manner in which the recruitment would be carried out. At this stage, it is also relevant to take note of that on 21.07.2020, vide a communication issued by the Principal Director, Directorate of Health and Family Welfare Department to the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Health and Family Welfare Department, it was mentioned that Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC) be duly informed about the manner in which the Special Recruitment Drive be carried out. 7. The record reveals that on 15.04.2021, 129 Nurses were appointed temporarily against newly created posts as well as against existing vacancies. This Court would deal with this order dated 15.04.2021 in detail at a subsequent stage of the instant judgment. But it is apposite to mention that the appointments were for a period of 12 months or till the posts were filled up through NPSC, whichever is earlier. 8. The Government of India in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department had issued a Circular dated 03.05.2021 to all the Additional Chief Secretaries/Principal Secretaries/ Health/ Medical Education of all States and Union Territories detailing out the guidelines for increasing the availability of trained human resources to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic situation. In the said Circular dated 03.05.2021, the Government of India recommended that incentives/recognition of services of those persons who rendered services during this period of COVID should be given. Clause-9 to 17 of the said communication being relevant is reproduced hereinunder: “ INCENTIVE/RECOGNITION OF SERVICE 9. Health is a State subject and human resources for health are largely engaged by State Governments. The Central Government engages for their own institutions. The private sector also engages a large number of Health professionals. 10. The relaxation mentioned above, finalized in consultation with the National Medical Commission and the Indian Nursing Council, is to further augment human resources for responding to Covid-19 and should be fully availed by public and private institutions engaged in the effort. 11. The National Health Mission (NHM) norm for contractual human resource engagement by States/UTs may be considered for implementation of the above proposed initiative for engaging additional manpower. Flexibility will be available with States to decide on remuneration as in the NHM norms. A suitable honorarium for distinguished Covid Service may also be considered. 12. 11. The National Health Mission (NHM) norm for contractual human resource engagement by States/UTs may be considered for implementation of the above proposed initiative for engaging additional manpower. Flexibility will be available with States to decide on remuneration as in the NHM norms. A suitable honorarium for distinguished Covid Service may also be considered. 12. The financial incentives/remuneration shall be available only for those who work for at least 100 days for Covid care. 13. All Health professionals thus engaged will be covered under the Insurance Scheme of Government for health workers fighting Covid-19. 14. All such professionals who sign up for minimum 100 days of Covid duty and complete it successfully will be given the Prime Minister’s Distinguished Covid National Service Samman from Government of India. 15. State/UT Governments can provide additional health professionals engaged through this process, to private Covid Hospitals as well in surge areas. 16. State Government/UT administrations are to ensure that the medical professionals sought to be engaged in Covid related work are suitably vaccinated. 17. The Central Government recommends to State/UT Governments to consider giving preference in regular Government appointments of Health professionals through the respective Public Service Commission/other recruitment bodies, for those Health Professionals under this special scheme, who complete a minimum of 100 days of Covid related duty.” 9. From the above quoted clauses of the Circular dated 03.05.2021, it appears that financial incentives/ remuneration were recommended for those who work at least 100 days for COVID care. The Prime Minister’s Distinguished COVID National Service Samman would be given to those professionals who sign up for minimum 100 days of COVID duty. The Central Government further recommended all States/Union Territories at Clause-17 to consider giving preference in regular Government appointments of Health professionals through the respective Public Service Commission/other recruitment bodies, for those Health Professionals under this Special Scheme, who complete a minimum of 100 days of COVID related duty. This appears to be the basis of the claim of the petitioners in the present proceedings. 10. It further appears that pursuant to the Circular issued by the Government of India dated 03.05.2021, the Chief Secretary, Government of Nagaland had also issued a Circular to the Principal Director, Health and Family Welfare Department in tune with the Circular issued by the Government of India dated 03.05.2021. 10. It further appears that pursuant to the Circular issued by the Government of India dated 03.05.2021, the Chief Secretary, Government of Nagaland had also issued a Circular to the Principal Director, Health and Family Welfare Department in tune with the Circular issued by the Government of India dated 03.05.2021. The relevant portion of the said communication dated 22.05.2021 issued by the Chief Secretary of the Government of Nagaland being pertinent to the issue involved is reproduced hereinunder: “Approve in Government Appointments: The Government will give preference, form of up to 25% of the total marks for the perspective recruitment depending on the length of COVID duties rendered to the health care workers who have worked on COVID-19 duties, in the government or private COVID at least 100 days for appointment against regular Government posts for the recruited through NPSC, NSSB or Departmental Recruitment Board during 2020-21 and 2022.” 11. At this stage, it is also pertinent to take note of a communication dated 05.05.2021 whereby the Chief Secretary, Government of Nagaland directed all private hospitals to reserve 50% occupancy only for COVID care. The record further reveals that in the meantime, the State of Nagaland, in order to fill the posts through regular recruitment took steps with the NPSC for carrying out the recruitment process. A Cabinet Memorandum was issued on 13.05.2022 detailing out how the Special Recruitment Drive would be conducted thereby giving preference to the healthcare workers rendering service during the COVID period in both Government and private Hospitals. From a perusal of the said Cabinet Memorandum, it reveals that the additional incentives for healthcare workers involved in COVID-19 duties as announced vide the communication dated 22.05.2021 25% marks was sought to be fructified by giving weightage to those healthcare workers depending on the length of COVID duties rendered in Government or private COVID-19 facilities for at least 100 days for appointment against regular Government post for posts recruited through the NPSC, NSSB or Departmental Recruitment Board during 2020-21 and 2022. 12. 12. It further appears from the said Cabinet Memorandum that in consultation with the P&AR Department, a decision would be taken to relax the recruitment rules as a one-time measure for the Special NPSC recruitment drive for Medical Officers and Junior Dental Surgeons to be recruited under the Nagaland Health Services Rules, 2006; Nurses under the Nagaland Nursing Service Rules, 1998, Medical Officer (AYUSH) and Research Scientists. From a further perusal of the Cabinet Memorandum it reveals that details were given as to how the Special Recruitment Drive would be carried out. It postulated that for written examination 50% marks would be awarded; 25% marks would be given to those who had performed COVID-19 duty, 10% marks for work experience and 15% marks for interview. This aspect is very relevant taking into consideration that the respondent authorities had while issuing the Cabinet Memorandum dated 13.05.2022 envisaged the participation of all, but while making the selection certain weightage would be given if the candidate had performed COVID-19 duty, i.e. to the extent of 25% marks. The said Cabinet Memorandum dated 13.05.2022 was approved by the Cabinet on 25.05.2022, more particularly in respect to relaxation of recruitment rules for special recruitment of health care workers. The Approval of the Cabinet to the Cabinet Memorandum was informed vide a communication dated 26.05.2022. 13. On the basis of the said Cabinet Memorandum dated 13.05.2022 which was approved by the Cabinet of the Government of Nagaland on 26.05.2022, the Governor of Nagaland notified various posts to be filled up through a Special Recruitment Drive as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the said notification. It is pertinent to observe that amongst the various posts which were mentioned in the notification dated 02.11.2022, 129 posts were reserved for Staff Nurses. This Court finds it very pertinent at this stage to take note of the terms and conditions mentioned in the said notification dated 02.11.2022 and the same being relevant to the dispute involved are reproduced hereinunder: “2. The Special Recruitment Drive shall be conducted by the Nagaland Public Service Commission and the Nagaland Staff Selection Board. 3. The maximum age for eligibility is relaxed up to 45 years as one time dispensation for officer/staff serving under on contract/engagement basis under NHM, NSACS, NHAK and State who have served the health care system during the pandemic. 4. The Special Recruitment Drive shall be conducted by the Nagaland Public Service Commission and the Nagaland Staff Selection Board. 3. The maximum age for eligibility is relaxed up to 45 years as one time dispensation for officer/staff serving under on contract/engagement basis under NHM, NSACS, NHAK and State who have served the health care system during the pandemic. 4. The allocation of marks shall stand as indicated below:- (a) Written exam @ 50% 250 marks (b) Weightage for COVID-19 duty @ 25% 125 marks (c) Weightage for work experience @ 10% 50 marks (d) Interview @ 12.5% 62.5 marks Total 487.5 marks 5. With reference to Section 4(b) weightage for COVID-19 duty @25%, the COVID duties should have been performed in Government and Private Hospitals in Nagaland which have designated COVID facilities. 6. The allocation of marks shall be applicable only to those Officers/Staff who are serving (contract/engagement basis) and contractual employees under NHAK, NHM, NSACS etc, who had resigned during the course of COVID-19 pandemic or refused to accept the contractual/engagement shall not be eligible for any weightage for rendering COVID-19 services. 8. Reservation for Person with Disability wherever applicable as sanctioned by the user department in accordance with the Government Notification No. AR-3/Gen-9/97 dated 13/08/2020.” 14. From a perusal of the terms above quoted, it reveals amongst others, weightage of 25% marks would be given to those who have performed COVID duties in the Government and Private Hospitals in Nagaland which were designated COVID facilities. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the Government of Nagaland vide the said Notification permitted the participation of all eligible persons for filling up of the posts as mentioned in the notification dated 02.11.2022. However, while conducting the Special Recruitment Drive there shall be a 25% marks being given if the healthcare professional had performed duties in Government or private hospitals during the COVID period. 15. The records are not clear, as to what, happened thereafter. But strangely enough, it appears from the records that the State respondents have changed the entire complexion of the Recruitment Drive to Regularization. It further appears from a reading of the Cabinet Memorandum dated 01.08.2024 that the Respondent Authorities have taken steps before the NPSC for the purpose of carrying out the Special Recruitment Drive. But strangely enough, it appears from the records that the State respondents have changed the entire complexion of the Recruitment Drive to Regularization. It further appears from a reading of the Cabinet Memorandum dated 01.08.2024 that the Respondent Authorities have taken steps before the NPSC for the purpose of carrying out the Special Recruitment Drive. The NPSC, however, conveyed that the process of regularization of the COVID-19 appointees as mandated by the State Government and High Court would be outside the purview of the recruitment made by NPSC. It is under such circumstances, the Respondent State have withdrawn all the requisition made to the NPSC and NSSB and placed the proposal for regularization of the posts in the name of Special Recruitment Drive. It also appears from a reading of the Cabinet Memorandum dated 01.08.2024 which is impugned in the instant proceedings that the Respondent Authorities have altered their stand from what was proposed in the incentives declared vide the communication dated 22.05.2021; Cabinet decision dated 26.05.2022 as well as the Notification dated 02.11.2022. 16. It is relevant to take note of that the Cabinet decision dated 06.08.2024 based upon the Cabinet Memorandum dated 01.08.2024 was the subject matter of challenge in WP(C)/239/2024 by various persons who were medical graduates possessing MBBS degree. In view of the challenge to the said Cabinet decision dated 06.08.2024, the process so initiated for regularizing those persons who were COVID appointees vide the Notification dated 20.08.2024 got stalled. 17. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide the common Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2025 passed in WP(C)/239/2024 along with WP(C)/187/2024 dismissed the challenge to the Cabinet decision dated 06.08.2024 primarily on 3 grounds: (i) The petitioners in WP(C)/239/2024 did not have the locus standi. (ii) The Cabinet decision dated 06.08.2024 was a policy decision of the State and the policy decision was held to be in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (iii) The petitioners in WP(C) No. 239/2024 did not assail the Cabinet decision of the years of 2020 and 2022 which were bedrock of the Cabinet decision dated 06.08.2024. 18. (iii) The petitioners in WP(C) No. 239/2024 did not assail the Cabinet decision of the years of 2020 and 2022 which were bedrock of the Cabinet decision dated 06.08.2024. 18. The records reveal that pursuant to the dismissal of the writ petition, being WP(C)/239/2024 vide the Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2025, the respondent authorities now have proceeded to fill up those posts by calling only those nurses who were appointed vide an order dated 05.04.2021 and continued in service and in that regard a Notification dated 18.08.2025 have been issued whereby the 280 posts were notified for regularization of the COVID-19 appointees through Departmental Screening Committee which included 124 posts of Staff Nurses. 19. The grievances of the petitioners herein are that the petitioners during the period of the COVID pandemic had rendered service for more than 100 days and further taking into account the decision taken by the Cabinet on 26.05.2022, they ought to have been considered for filling up the vacant posts of Staff Nurses. 20. Mr. Taka Masa, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that like those 129 Nurses who were appointed on 05.04.2021, the petitioners have also rendered service during the COVID period. He submitted that the actions on the part of the Respondent Authorities now to change the Special Recruitment Drive to a process of regularization affects the rights of the petitioners under Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the petitioners who have duly rendered their service have a fundamental right to be considered in respect to the posts falling within public employment. 21. Let this Court now deal with the instructions so placed by the State respondents. It is mentioned in the instructions that a decision was taken to only invite those persons who were appointed on 05.04.2021 on account of the Cabinet Memorandum dated 01.08.2024 and more particularly in view of Clause 4(i) which categorically stipulated that those appointed during the COVID-19 and who are still in service would be regularized through the Departmental Screening Committee and under such circumstances, the petitioners herein who were not appointed during the COVID-19 were therefore not entitled to any relief as claimed in the writ petition. It is further mentioned in the said para wise comments that the respondent Department do not deny the fact that the Special Recruitment Drive through the NPSC was carried out as per the initial Cabinet Memorandum dated 26.05.202 as well as the subsequent issuance of the notification dated 02.11.2022 by relaxation of Recruitment Rules for recruitment of health care workers. The same was communicated to the NPSC. However, the NPSC by letter dated 10.11.2022 intimated that the proposed Special Recruitment Drive cannot be conducted as the same was not in accordance with the Recruitment Rules of the Commission. It was further mentioned that the NPSC had communicated to the Department that the NPSC had examined the proposal for the Special Recruitment Drive and since the recruitment is a one-time dispensation of regularization of the COVID-19 appointees, the whole exercise is within the prerogative of the Department/Government. It was further mentioned that the notification dated 02.11.2022 would show that the recruitment is to be done giving weightage of 25% marks which is equivalent to 100 days of COVID duty. However, the NPSC declined the recruitment drive as the same was not in consonance with the Recruitment Rules, 2008. Under such circumstances all the procedures were relaxed by the latest Cabinet decision dated 06.08.2024. It was, therefore, stated that as the petitioners were not appointed during the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioners were therefore not called for the regularization process. Paragraph-2 of the said para wise comments being relevant is reproduced hereinunder: “2. The Department does not deny the fact that a Special Recruitment Drive through NPSC will be conducted as per the initial Cabinet Memorandum dated 25.06.2020 (Annexure-198 to the writ petition) and subsequent issuance of the Notification dated 02.11.2022 (Annexure-A) by relaxing the recruitment rules for Special Recruitment of Health Care Workers. The same was communicated to the NPSC however the NPSC by its letter dated 10.11.2022 (Annexure -228 to the writ petition) the proposed Special Recruitment Drive cannot be conducted as the same is not in accordance with the Recruitment Rules of the Commission. Accordingly, the NPSC wrote to the Department to accord clearance to conduct the Recruitment as per their Rules. Accordingly, the NPSC wrote to the Department to accord clearance to conduct the Recruitment as per their Rules. Moreover, the NPSC communicated to the Department that the NPSC had examined the proposal for Special Recruitment Drive and since the recruitment is a onetime dispensation for recruitment of COVID-19 appointee the whole exercise is within the prerogative of the Department/Government (Annexure-230 to the writ petition). A reading of the Notification dated 02.11.2022 will show that the recruitment is to be done giving weightage of 25% which is equivalent to 100 days of COVID duty. However, the NPSC declined the Special Recruitment Drive as the same was not in consonance with their Recruitment Rules, 2008. However, all the procedures were relaxed by the latest Cabinet decision dated 01.08.2024. As such since the petitioners were not appointed during COVID-19 as per the Cabinet decision dated 01.08.2024, they were not called for the regularization process.” 22. In the backdrop of the above materials on record, this Court had duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties whose submissions aligned with the pleadings made in the writ petition as well as the instructions so placed and as such for the sake of brevity the submissions are not reiterated herein again. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION 23. The point for consideration before this Court is, as to whether, the State respondents have violated the mandate of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India in taking steps for regularizing those COVID-19 appointees and thereby leaving aside the healthcare persons like the petitioners who have rendered more than 100 days of service during the COVID-19 pandemic. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION 24. The facts narrated hereinabove would show that on account of COVID-19 pandemic coupled with inadequate number of healthcare persons available to render service during the COVID- 19 pandemic, Cabinet decisions were taken for creation of various posts including creation of 221 posts of Staff Nurses. In the said Cabinet decisions, it was also decided that the said approval would be a onetime relaxation of the laid down rules and procedures for recruitment, regularization and condonation of age and this onetime measure should not be treated as a precedent. 25. The record further reveals that on 16.07.2020, an advertisement was issued for filling up of 110 posts in various health units for Staff Nurse. 25. The record further reveals that on 16.07.2020, an advertisement was issued for filling up of 110 posts in various health units for Staff Nurse. It appears that various eligibility criteria as well as the mode of recruitment process were duly mentioned. Subsequent thereto, a communication was issued on 21.07.2020 whereby the Principal Director, Directorate of Health and Family Welfare, Nagaland issued a communication to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government Nagaland, Health and Family Welfare Department intimating the latter that the Nagaland Public Service Commission be informed to consider the suggestions so given in the said communication. 26. The record reveals that the Nagaland Public Service Commission, did not carry out the special recruitment drive. Various candidates were shortlisted including the petitioners and amongst them, 129 Staff Nurses were appointed vide the order dated 15.04.2021. These appointments were made against newly created post or against regular vacant posts. However, it is very pertinent to take note of the terms and conditions of the order of appointment of these 129 Staff Nurses. The conditions so stipulated in the said order dated 15.04.2021 being relevant are reproduced herein under: “1. The engagement shall be for a period of 12 (twelve) months only or till regular appointment is made through NPSC, whichever is earlier. 2. The appointees shall have no right to claim for regularization of the engagement on contingency basis on any ground whatsoever. 3. No sendry service-benefits such as Earned leave, save for 12 (twelve) days of casual leave, shall be admissible during the course of the 12 (twelve) months contingency engagement. 4. The engagement carries with its liability to serve in any part of Nagaland. 5. The engagement shall be liable to be terminated at any time without any notice and without assigning any reason thereof. 6. If any candidate is found keeping proxy, the engagement will be terminated without any further Communication. 7. No transfer will be entertained during the engagement period.” 27. From the above quoted conditions, it would transpire that the engagement of the 129 Staff Nurses was on temporary basis for a period of 12 months only or till regular appointment is made through Nagaland Public Service Commission, whichever is earlier. This aspect makes it clear that the Government still considered that the posts of the Staff Nurses would be filled up as per the recruitment rules i.e. Nagaland Nursing Service Rules, 1988. This aspect makes it clear that the Government still considered that the posts of the Staff Nurses would be filled up as per the recruitment rules i.e. Nagaland Nursing Service Rules, 1988. Clause 2 of the order dated 15.04.2021 as quoted hereinabove categorically mandated that those appointees shall have no right to claim for regularization of engagement on contingency basis on any ground whatsoever. The order dated 15.04.2021 therefore was clear about the rights of the Staff Nurses who were appointed by virtue of the said order. 28. The records further reveal that on account of the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic which prevailed sometime in the month of April, 2021 onwards, the Government of India considering the lack of healthcare persons to attend the COVID duties issued a circular dated 03.05.2021 recommending certain incentives/recognition of services to those healthcare persons who are engaged during the COVID-19 pandemic situation. 29. In the previous segments of the instant judgment, the incentives/recognition of services has been duly quoted. For the purpose of the instant proceedings, Clause 17 of the communication dated 03.05.2021 is relevant inasmuch as the seeds of the present dispute were sown on the basis thereof. A perusal of Clause 17 would show that the Central Government recommended the State/UT Governments to consider giving preferences in regular Government appointments of Health professions through the respective Public Service Commission/other recruitment bodies, for those healthcare professionals under the Special Scheme who completed a minimum of 100 days of COVID related duty. 30. It is also pertinent herein to observe that on account of insufficient healthcare infrastructure, there was a need for mobilizing the resources available in the private hospitals to ensure effective management of COVID-19 patients. The private hospitals were therefore directed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Nagaland vide an order dated 05.05.2021 to reserve at least 50% of the bed capacity of the normal wards and the ICUs available for treatment of COVID-19 patients. 31. Subsequent thereto, on the basis of Clause 17 of the Circular dated 03.05.2021, a communication dated 22.05.2021 was issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Nagaland to the Principal Director, Health and Family Welfare Department, Nagaland as well as to all Deputy Commissioners, Chairman, District Task Forces, Nagaland and the Chief Medical Officers of all Districts, Nagaland. The said communication was in respect to additional incentives for healthcare workers involved in COVID- 19 duties. The said communication was in respect to additional incentives for healthcare workers involved in COVID- 19 duties. In the previous segments of the instant judgment, this Court had duly quoted the incentives so provided as regards preference given of 25% of total marks depending on the length of COVID-19 duties rendered by the healthcare workers who have worked on COVID-19 duties, in Government or Private COVID facilities at least 100 days for appointment against regular Government posts for recruitment through NPSC, NSSB or Departmental Recruitment Board during 2020-21 and 2022. The petitioners herein who were working in NHM, NHAK as well as private Hospitals were encouraged to render COVID related duties putting their lives at peril by such incentives. 32. Subsequent thereto, these additional incentives which were promised vide the communication dated 22.05.2021 got the stamp of approval from the Cabinet of the Government of Nagaland in the form of a Cabinet Memorandum dated 13.05.2022, the details of which have already been mentioned in the previous segments of the instant judgment. It is relevant to take note of that in the Cabinet Memorandum dated 13.05.2022, the enclosure therewith which is Annexure-II shows that 221 posts of Staff Nurses were created consequent to special approvals granted by the Cabinet on the basis of Creation Orders dated 26.06.2020 and 02.07.2020. It is further relevant to observe that from a reading of the Cabinet Memorandum dated 13.05.2022, it appears that all the posts which were mentioned at Table 1 of Annexure-II were open for recruitment by direct recruit. However, those healthcare professionals who have rendered COVID-19 related duties for 100 days in Government or private COVID facilities would get a preference in the form of 25% of the total marks for respective recruitment examination depending on the length of COVID duties rendered. The incentives, therefore, which was promised vide a communication dated 22.05.2021 by the Chief Secretary, Government of Nagaland stood further approved by the Cabinet of the Government of Nagaland. 33. The records further reveal that this Cabinet Memorandum dated 13.05.2022 was approved by the Cabinet of the Government of Nagaland in its meeting dated 25.05.2022 and the same was duly informed to the Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Nagaland vide a communication dated 26.05.2022. 33. The records further reveal that this Cabinet Memorandum dated 13.05.2022 was approved by the Cabinet of the Government of Nagaland in its meeting dated 25.05.2022 and the same was duly informed to the Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Nagaland vide a communication dated 26.05.2022. On the basis of the Cabinet Memorandum dated 13.05.2022 which was approved in the Cabinet Meeting held on 25.05.2022 and duly informed on 26.05.2022, a Notification on 02.11.2022 was issued. In the previous segments of the instant judgment, this Court had duly quoted the terms and conditions of the said Notification dated 02.11.2022. 34. The terms and conditions mentioned in the said Notification dated 02.11.2022 would show that participation for filling up of these 129 posts of Staff Nurses were available to eligible candidates and at the time of recruitment, 25% weightage would be given in the form of 125 marks for COVID-19 duty. The said aspect appears from a reading of Clause 4 and Clause 5 of the Notification dated 02.11.2022. 35. It is very pertinent to take note of that out of the 129 Staff Nurses appointed temporarily, 5 Staff Nurses resigned. This aspect would be relevant as would be seen in the later stages of the instant judgment. 36. It further appears from the records that the Cabinet had taken a decision on 06.08.2024 on the basis of the Cabinet Memorandum dated 01.08.2024 whereby the promises of the incentives to be given to all healthcare persons working in Government and private Hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic were withdrawn. Instead of carrying out the Special Recruitment Drive giving certain preferences to those health care persons who have rendered duties in Government and private Hospitals, the Government of Nagaland have chosen to regularize the services of those COVID-19 appointees. It further appears that the Government of Nagaland had requested the Nagaland Public Service Commission to carry out the regularization of these COVID appointees. In other words, the Government of Nagaland wanted to regularize all those COVID- 19 appointees giving a camouflage of recruitment. The Nagaland Public Service Commission, however, declined to conduct the regularization examinations. 37. Under such circumstances, the Cabinet Memorandum dated 01.08.2024 was submitted to the Cabinet for regularization of the services of those persons who were appointed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Nagaland Public Service Commission, however, declined to conduct the regularization examinations. 37. Under such circumstances, the Cabinet Memorandum dated 01.08.2024 was submitted to the Cabinet for regularization of the services of those persons who were appointed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Cabinet Memorandum dated 01.08.2024 further mentioned that these steps for regularization were necessary on the ground that the Government had given a commitment. The said Cabinet Memorandum dated 01.08.2024 was approved by the Cabinet of the Government of Nagaland in its meeting held on 06.08.2024 and the same was duly intimidated on 07.08.2024 to the Commissioner and Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Nagaland. 38. It further appears that on the basis of the said approval given by the Cabinet, a process was initiated by the Health and Family Welfare Department, Nagaland to conduct the written and viva-voce examination for filling up of 280 posts. The names of 124 Staff Nurses were forwarded for participation in the said written examination and viva-voce. It appears that the list of only 124 Staff Nurses were forwarded, on account of 5 Staff Nurses have resigned pursuant to the order dated 15.04.2021. 39. The challenge to the said recruitment process in WP(C) No. 239/2024 was rejected by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide a common judgment and order dated 01.08.2025 thereby upholding the Cabinet Memorandum dated 01.08.2024. In the previous segments of the instant judgment, this Court has duly mentioned the reasons why the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had dismissed the writ petition. 40. Be that as it may, the question which is involved in the present proceedings is completely different from the question which was involved in WP(C) No. 239/2024 and as such, the said judgment and order dated 01.08.2025 would have no implication on the aspect which is presently being adjudicated by this Court. 41. The record further reveals that pursuant to the judgment and order dated 01.08.2025, another Notification was issued on 18.08.2025 whereby the State of Nagaland had notified for regularization of 280 posts which includes 124 posts of Staff Nurse through a Departmental Screening Committee. In terms with the said Notification dated 18.08.2025, no form of any examination would be carried out. 42. In terms with the said Notification dated 18.08.2025, no form of any examination would be carried out. 42. The question therefore arises, as to whether, the State respondents can be permitted to resile from their promise of giving incentives to all health care workers rendering service during the COVID-19 period and to regularize only those persons who were appointed during the COVID-19 pandemic. 43. In the backdrop of the above analysis of the facts, this Court finds it pertinent to note that it is well settled that public employment has to be made as per the stipulations contained in the Constitution of India and the laws made therein under. Our Constitutional scheme envisages employment by the Government and its instrumentalities on the basis of a procedure established in that behalf. Equality of opportunity is the hall mark of our Constitution which provides for an affirmative action’s to ensure that unequal’s are not treated as equals. In other words, the public employment has to be in terms with the Constitutional scheme. It is also relevant to observe that the power of a State as an employer is more limited than that of a private employer, as the State is subjected to Constitutional limitation and cannot be exercised arbitrarily. 44. Article 309 of the Constitution of India gives the Government the power to frame Rules for the purpose of laying down the conditions of service for recruitment of persons to be appointed in public service and post in connection with the affairs of the Union or any of the States. This Article contemplates the drawing up of a procedure and Rules to regulate the recruitment and regulate the service conditions of the appointees appointed to public post. It is well recognized principle of law that because of this Article, the entire process of recruitment for services is controlled by a detailed procedure which specifies necessary qualifications, the mode of appointment etc. In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Umadevi & Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court categorically observed that if Rules have been made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India than the Government can make appointments only in accordance with the Rules. 45. In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Umadevi & Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court categorically observed that if Rules have been made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India than the Government can make appointments only in accordance with the Rules. 45. The facts involved in the present dispute would show that the State respondents initially have adopted a policy to provide certain preferential marks to those healthcare workers who have performed duties during the COVID-19 pandemic. Subsequently, the Respondents State has taken a decision to regularize the services of those appointments which were made during the COVID pandemic. It is therefore essential to note when the State can resort to regularization of its employees. 46. In Ashwani Kumar & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in (1997) 2 SCC 1 , the Supreme Court while considering the validity of confirmation of irregularly employed observed that the question of regularization in any service including any Government service may arise in two contingencies. First, if on any available clear vacancy which are of long duration appointments are made on ad hoc basis or daily wage basis by Competent Authority and are continued from time to time and if it is found that the incumbents concerned have continued to be employed for a long period of time with or without any artificial breaks and their services are otherwise required by the institution which employs them, a time may come in the service carrier of such employees who are continued on ad hoc basis for a given substantial length of time to regularize them, so that the employees concerned can give their best by being assured security of tenure. However, to apply the said principle, the pre-condition has to be satisfied that initial entry of such employee must be against any available Sanctioned vacancy by following the Rules and Regulations governing such entry. The second contingency which may arise is in a situation when the initial entry of an employee against an available vacancy is found to have suffered from some flaw in the procedural exercise, though the person appointing is competent to effect such initial recruitment and has otherwise followed the due procedure for such recruitment. The second contingency which may arise is in a situation when the initial entry of an employee against an available vacancy is found to have suffered from some flaw in the procedural exercise, though the person appointing is competent to effect such initial recruitment and has otherwise followed the due procedure for such recruitment. A need may then arise in the light of the exigency of administrative requirement for waiving such irregularity in the initial appointment by a Competent Authority and an irregular initial appointment may be regularized and the security of tenure may be made available to the incumbent concerned. But even in such a case, the initial entry must not be found to be totally illegal or in blatant disregard of all the established Rules and Regulations governing such recruitment. 47. At this stage, it is relevant to observe that the 129 Staff Nurses who were appointed on 15.04.2021 under no circumstances can be said to have been rendering service for long period of time. Secondly, the appointments so made vide the order dated 15.04.2021 on the face of the order itself shows that such appointments were not made by the NPSC and as such, the tenure of those contractual appointments were for a period of 12 months or when the NPSC carry out recruitment, whichever is earlier. Under such circumstances, the two contingencies so mentioned in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra) do not appear to have been met for going ahead with the regularization process at this stage. 48. The judgment in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra) only mentions about being in employment on ad-hoc or contractual basis for a long duration. What would be a long duration is a question. Before that aspect is dealt with, this Court finds it apposite to observe that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra) observed that when a person enters a temporary employment or gets engaged as a contractual or a casual worker and the engagement is not based on proper selection as recognized by the Relevant rules or procedures, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a procedure for selection and in cases concerned in consultation with the Public Service Commission. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court further observed in clear and unambiguous terms that the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State had held out a promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such promise. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court further observed that it is also obvious that the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post. Paragraph No. 47 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced herein below: “47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognised by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in cases concerned, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post.” (emphasis supplied on the underlined portion) 49. Now let this Court deal with the aspect as to what can be said to be a long duration of employment. Paragraph No. 53 of the judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra) may throw some light in that respect. The said paragraph is quoted herein under: “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. Now let this Court deal with the aspect as to what can be said to be a long duration of employment. Paragraph No. 53 of the judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra) may throw some light in that respect. The said paragraph is quoted herein under: “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [ (1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071 ] , R.N. Nanjundappa [ (1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799 ] and B.N. Nagarajan [ (1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937 ] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” (emphasis supplied on the underlined portion) 50. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” (emphasis supplied on the underlined portion) 50. A perusal of the above quoted paragraph would show that when duly qualified persons are appointed in duly sanctioned vacant post and have continued to work for 10 years or more, that too, without intervention of orders of the Court or the Tribunal, the Union of India or the State Government and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure. The said observations provides inputs as to what would be a long duration when employees are appointed on ad hoc or temporary basis to sanctioned posts. It appears to be not less than 10 years. 51. The Supreme Court in another judgment rendered in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238 had explained the observations made at paragraph No. 53 in the case of Umadevi (supra) and observed that the regularization rules made therein under must be given a pragmatic interpretation and if those employees have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the regularization rules, they ought to be given the benefit of service rendered by them. Paragraph Nos. 7 to 10 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced herein under: “7. The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] was therefore twofold, namely, to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is precisely what Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] and Kesari [State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] sought to avoid. 8. If a strict and literal interpretation, forgetting the spirit of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , is to be taken into consideration then no irregularly appointed employee of the State of Jharkhand could ever be regularised since that State came into existence only on 15-11-2000 and the cut-off date was fixed as 10-4-2006. In other words, in this manner the pernicious practice of indefinitely continuing irregularly appointed employees would be perpetuated contrary to the intent of the Constitution Bench. 9. The High Court as well as the State of Jharkhand ought to have considered the entire issue in a contextual perspective and not only from the point of view of the interest of the State, financial or otherwise — the interest of the employees is also required to be kept in mind. What has eventually been achieved by the State of Jharkhand is to short circuit the process of regular appointments and instead make appointments on an irregular basis. This is hardly good governance. 10. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularised unless there is some valid objection to their regularisation like misconduct, etc.” 52. This Court also finds it relevant to take note of another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir & Others Vs. District Bar Association, Bandipora reported in (2017) 3 SCC 410 wherein the Supreme Court also after dealing with the judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra) explained the concept of regularization. This Court also finds it relevant to take note of another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir & Others Vs. District Bar Association, Bandipora reported in (2017) 3 SCC 410 wherein the Supreme Court also after dealing with the judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra) explained the concept of regularization. Paragraph No. 26 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced herein under: “26. The principles will have to be formulated bearing in mind the position set out in the above judgments. Regularisation is not a source of recruitment nor is it intended to confer permanency upon appointments which have been made without following the due process envisaged by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Essentially a scheme for regularisation, in order to be held to be legally valid, must be one which is aimed at validating certain irregular appointments which may have come to be made in genuine and legitimate administrative exigencies. In all such cases it may be left open to courts to lift the veil to enquire whether the scheme is aimed at achieving the above objective and is a genuine attempt at validating irregular appointments. The State and its instrumentalities cannot be permitted to use this window to validate illegal appointments. The second rider which must necessarily be placed is that the principle as formulated above is not meant to create or invest in a temporary or ad hoc employee the right to seek a writ commanding the State to frame a scheme for regularisation. Otherwise, this would simply reinvigorate a class of claims which has been shut out permanently by Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753]. Ultimately, it would have to be left to the State and its instrumentalities to consider whether the circumstances warrant such a scheme being formulated. The formulation of such a scheme cannot be accorded the status of an enforceable right. It would perhaps be prudent to leave it to a claimant to establish whether he or she falls within the exceptions carved out in para 53 and falls within the ambit of a scheme that may be formulated by the State. The formulation of such a scheme cannot be accorded the status of an enforceable right. It would perhaps be prudent to leave it to a claimant to establish whether he or she falls within the exceptions carved out in para 53 and falls within the ambit of a scheme that may be formulated by the State. Subject to the riders referred to above, a scheme of regularisation could fall within the permissible limits of Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] and be upheld.” (emphasis supplied on the underlined portion) 53. From the above analysis, it would therefore be seen that the regularization is not a source of recruitment nor is it intended to confer permanency upon appointments which have been made without following the due process envisaged by Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. A scheme of regularization in order to be held to be legally valid must be one which is aimed at validating certain irregular appointments which may have come to be made in genuine and legitimate administrative exigency. Further to that, the contingencies as mentioned in Ashwani Kumar (supra) needs to be satisfied. 54. Now let this Court come back to the present case. It would be seen that the State of Nagaland had appointed 129 Staff Nurses on 15.04.2021. The conditions so mentioned in the order dated 15.04.2021 categorically mentions that these appointments are made on contractual basis for a period of 12 months or till regular appointment is made through NPSC whichever is earlier. It is further mentioned in the order dated 15.04.2021 that the appointees shall have no right to claim for regularization of the engagement. Therefore, it was very clear in the order of appointment dated 15.04.2021, that there was no promise made by the State. In fact, a perusal of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra) wherein the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court observed that there can be no promises made by the State, that the ad hoc/temporary/contractual employees would be regularized or made permanent subsequently. 55. Now let this Court take note of the Cabinet Memorandum dated 01.08.2024 which was placed before the Cabinet of the Government of Nagaland. 55. Now let this Court take note of the Cabinet Memorandum dated 01.08.2024 which was placed before the Cabinet of the Government of Nagaland. It is mentioned in the said Cabinet Memorandum that out of 329 posts, there are 280 healthcare workers who were appointed during the COVID period are still in service. It is further mentioned that the State Government had made a commitment for subsequent regularization of the services at the time of the appointment during pandemic and it was under such circumstances suggested in the Cabinet Memorandum dated 01.08.2024 that those persons who were appointed during the COVID pandemic should be regularized through a Departmental Screening Committee. The contents of the Cabinet Memorandum dated 01.08.2024 which states about commitment given to those persons who are appointed during the COVID pandemic appears to be contrary to the contents of the order of appointment dated 15.04.2021. 56. It is also very relevant that nothing has been brought on record by the State respondents to show that any such commitment was given. The para wise comments which has been placed before this Court and kept on record and marked with the letter “X”, also do not mention that any such commitment was given. Even otherwise, in view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court which is the law holding the field, such a commitment is not permissible. Consequently, the approval given by the Cabinet of the Government of Nagaland on 06.08.2024 of the Cabinet Memorandum dated 01.08.2024 appears to be in conflict with the settled principles of law. 57. This Court further finds it relevant to observe that these appointees who were appointed during the COVID period have not even completed 10 years of service. Under such circumstances, the urgency shown by the State to regularize their employment appears to be not in good taste, that too, when regularization is an exception to the mandate of Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. 58. At this stage, this Court further finds it very pertinent to observe that adherence to Rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of the Constitution of India inasmuch as Article 14 of the Constitution of India uses the expression “equality before law” and “equal protection of law”. 58. At this stage, this Court further finds it very pertinent to observe that adherence to Rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of the Constitution of India inasmuch as Article 14 of the Constitution of India uses the expression “equality before law” and “equal protection of law”. Insofar as public employment is concerned, Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India expressly declares that in matters of public employment or appointment to serve any office under the State, citizens of this country shall have equal opportunity. Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India further declares that no citizen shall be discriminated in the said matter on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, decent, place of birth, residents or any of them. Therefore, it is the further opinion of this Court that the Respondent Authorities cannot by way of regularization deprive the petitioners herein, their right of equal opportunity for consideration along with the appointees during the COVID period. 59. This Court further finds it relevant at this stage to take note of that on the basis of Clause 17 of the Circular dated 03.05.2021 issued by the Government of India, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland had announced additional incentives vide a communication dated 22.05.2021. On the basis of the said additional incentives announced, the petitioners herein along with other healthcare workers have duly performed duties during the COVID pandemic putting their lives at peril. The Cabinet of the Government of Nagaland have also in recognition of the services rendered by the healthcare workers during the COVID pandemic had approved the Cabinet Memorandum dated 13.05.2022 whereby it was announced that 25% weightage would be given to those who rendered COVID pandemic duties for a period of 100 days. By the Notification dated 02.11.2022, the said policy decision was informed to all concerned. Thereupon, to resile from that promise after allowing the petitioners herein along with other healthcare workers, who rendered service during the COVID pandemic is absolutely unjust and unfair. The actions therefore of the State respondents to take steps only to regularize those persons who were COVID appointees is bad in law and violates the very principles of promissory estoppel. 60. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of another very pertinent aspect of the matter. The actions therefore of the State respondents to take steps only to regularize those persons who were COVID appointees is bad in law and violates the very principles of promissory estoppel. 60. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of another very pertinent aspect of the matter. The healthcare workers who carried out duties during the COVID pandemic faced a host of unprecedented challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. This included mental health crisis on account of emotional exertions, depersonalization and reduce job satisfaction from relentless, long duration shifts often with insufficient rest. There was a constant fear amongst the healthcare workers of contracting the virus and transmitting it to their families leading many to isolate themselves from the loved ones. The healthcare workers also experienced guilt over the standard of care they were able to provide under severe strain. The healthcare workers had also faced physical health and safety issues of contracting the COVID- 19 virus. During the initial phases of the pandemic, many healthcare workers faced a severe global shortage of high quality personnel protective equipment forcing them to reuse equipments and putting their health at risk. It cannot also be forgotten that these healthcare workers had to wear tight restrictive personnel protective equipment for extended periods. The high work load also caused severe fatigue, muscle strain and sleep deprivation. Though the people in general, praised the healthcare workers as “COVID WARRIORS”, but in the ground reality, they faced stigma, ostracization and hostility from communities and neighbours who feared infection. In view of such sacrifices made by these healthcare workers, both in the Government as well as in the private Hospitals, the action of the State respondents only to think or be concerned on the well being of those appointed during the COVID period, but completely ignoring the other healthcare workers like the petitioners who equally performed duties during the COVID period shows complete insensitiveness on the part of the State respondents. In the opinion of this Court, the action on the part of the State Respondents amounts to violation of the equality Clause inasmuch as without there being any intelligible differentia distinguishing the petitioners along with those nurses who were appointed during the COVID period, there cannot be a reasonable classification and as such, the Cabinet Memorandum dated 01.08.2024 which was approved by the Cabinet on 06.08.2024 is bad in law and liable to be interfered with. 61. This Court further finds it relevant to take into account another very important aspect of the matter that after the Cabinet Memorandum dated 06.08.2024 and the advertisement so issued thereupon on 20.08.2024, there was a challenge made before this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No. 239/2024. The basis of the challenge made in the instant writ petition to the Cabinet Memorandum dated 01.08.2024 which was subsequently approved by the Cabinet of the Government of Nagaland on 06.08.2024 is however completely different from the case of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 239/2024. 62. Be that as it may, there was a stay to the regularization sought to be carried out. Pursuant to the dismissal of the writ petition being WP(C) No. 239/2024 vide the judgment and order dated 01.08.2025, it appears that the Respondent State now being encouraged have issued the Notification dated 18.08.2025 whereby the Special Recruitment Drive giving certain preferential treatment to the healthcare workers were done away with and only those persons who were appointed vide the order dated 15.04.2021 and continued to remain in the job i.e. 124 Staff Nurses were invited for regularization. 63. Taking into account that the Cabinet Memorandum dated 01.08.2024 which was approved by the Cabinet of the Government of Nagaland on 06.08.2024 is bad in law, the Notification dated 18.08.2025 also cannot survive. 64. Accordingly this Court, therefore, disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions: (i) The Cabinet Memorandum dated 01.08.2024 which received the Cabinet approval on 06.08.2024 is bad in law on account of a decision taken to regularize those persons who were appointed during the COVID pandemic and thereby depriving others who had duly rendered services during the COVID pandemic. It is the opinion of this Court that the said Cabinet Memorandum dated 01.08.2024 which received the approval of the Cabinet of the Government of Nagaland on 06.08.2024 is in violation of Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India and accordingly the same is set aside and quashed. (ii) The Notification dated 18.08.2025 is a fall out of the Cabinet Memorandum dated 01.08.2024 which was approved by the Cabinet of the Government of Nagaland on 06.08.2024. As the Cabinet Memorandum dated 01.08.2024 which was approved on 06.08.2024 by the Cabinet of the Government of Nagaland have been interfered with being in violation of Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India, the Notification dated 18.08.2025 impugned in the instant proceedings cannot also survive and accordingly, the same is set aside and quashed. (iii) The normal Rule for filling up of posts in public employment is regular recruitment through prescribed agencies. The State respondents would be at liberty to fill up those posts so created thereby permitting all temporary employees including those appointees who were appointed vide the order dated 15.04.2021 to compete with all other persons who are eligible. The State, taking into account its policy decision would be at liberty to give certain preferential marks to those persons who have rendered service during the COVID pandemic. (iv) The petitioners herein shall be also eligible to participate in the recruitment of the posts so created along with all other eligible candidates. (v) This Court further observes that the State respondents would be within its power to provide preferential marks to the petitioners herein along with all healthcare workers who served during the COVID pandemic for a period of 100 or more days. (vi) Before parting with the records, this Court observes that the present writ petition only relates to the 221 posts created of Staff Nurses and the steps taken by the respondents to fill up 124 posts of Staff Nurses by way of regularization. The petitioners have also sought for reliefs specifically only in respect to the posts of Staff Nurses. Consequently, the observations and directions given in sub- paragraphs (i) to (v) of the present paragraph shall be only in respect to the Staff Nurses.