JUDGMENT & ORDER : ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J. 1. These two appeals challenge the common judgment and order dated 01.08.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.239/2024 and WP(C) No. 187/2024. 2. By the aforesaid common judgment and order, the learned Single Judge dismissed both the writ petitions filed by the appellants, questioning the Cabinet decision dated 6.8.2024; the communication dated 20.08.2024; and a letter whereby a special recruitment drive was initiated for the regularisation of services of doctors who were engaged during the COVID-19 pandemic. 3. The essential facts which are necessary for proper adjudication of the issues at hand, in a nutshell, are that during the COVID-19 crisis period, the State Cabinet, Nagaland, in its meeting held on 1st June 2020, after reviewing the status of arrangements for the COVID-19 pandemic, amongst others, decided in principle to recruit medical personnel like doctors, nurses, etc. 4. Thereafter, the Health Department was asked to provide a formal proposal regarding the manpower requirement. The Cabinet considered the Health and Family Welfare Department's proposal in its meeting dated 11.06.2020. 5. After taking note of the COVID-19 pandemic and the prevailing extraordinary situations, the views of the P&AR Department, financial implications, opined for the urgent requirement of health care personnel, including doctors. And accordingly, approved the proposal of the Health and Family Welfare Department for the creation of certain posts. 6. Subsequently, posts were created, and, in its meeting held on 23.06.2020, the State Cabinet directed that these newly created posts be filled by the Health Department within a month, with prior advertisement. 7. It was further provided that, while filling up the post, due weightage should be given to the marks obtained by candidates in the qualifying degree and the years of experience. It also mandated that the interview panel should include independent experts from outside the state. It was also decided that the appointment order should clearly indicate that the appointments are temporary and that regular recruitment shall be conducted through a special Recruitment Drive by the Nagaland Public Service Commission. 8. Subsequently, posts were advertised, and suitable candidates were selected, including the private respondents and appellants in WA No. 32/2025. 9. They were appointed in November 2020. Such engagement was for a period of 12 months or until regular appointments are made through the Nagaland Public Service Commission, whichever is earlier. 8. Subsequently, posts were advertised, and suitable candidates were selected, including the private respondents and appellants in WA No. 32/2025. 9. They were appointed in November 2020. Such engagement was for a period of 12 months or until regular appointments are made through the Nagaland Public Service Commission, whichever is earlier. It was also clarified that the appointees shall have no right to claim regularisation. 10. The private respondents continued to serve after the due extension of their services. However, the appellants in WA No.32/2025 resigned from their respective services to pursue higher studies. 11. Subsequently, the State cabinet, on 13th May 2022, decided to conduct a special recruitment drive for medical officers and junior dental surgeons under the Nagaland Health Services Rule 2006, and nurses under the Nagaland Nursing Service Rules 1988, in consultation with the P&AR Department. 12. The proposal was submitted to the Nagaland Public Service Commission, which, in turn, opined that the department's proposed special recruitment is not in accordance with the Recruitment rules. 13. The Department withdrew the proposal and sought permission to conduct the special selection drive themselves, and sought the PSC's opinion. After re-examining, the Commission opined that, since the decision is based on a valid reason, the NPSC has no comments/issues with the proposed special recruitment drive for COVID-19 appointees to be conducted by the Health and Family Welfare Department, as the whole exercise is within the prerogative of the government. 14. Accordingly, on 1st of August 2024, a decision was taken to regularise the COVID-19 appointees through a departmental screening committee consisting of representatives from different departments and subject experts for each category. 15. Such a proposal to regularise the service of COVID-19 appointees through a departmental screening committee was approved by the State cabinet in its meeting held on 06.08.2024, by relaxing the approved procedure. Accordingly, a written exam was held on 26.08.2024, and subsequently, a viva voce was held; the select list was published. 16. At this stage, the writ petitions were filed. 17. The primary ground of challenge in WP(C) No.239/2024 was that the state respondents' exercise/decision to conduct a screening test, in the form of a special recruitment drive for temporary medical officers into regular service, is in violation of the Nagaland Health Services Rule 2006. 18. 16. At this stage, the writ petitions were filed. 17. The primary ground of challenge in WP(C) No.239/2024 was that the state respondents' exercise/decision to conduct a screening test, in the form of a special recruitment drive for temporary medical officers into regular service, is in violation of the Nagaland Health Services Rule 2006. 18. According to the Learned Counsel, such exercise is not in conformity with the service rule framed in exercise of power under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, and that Nagaland Public Service Commission should have conducted such recruitment through open competition and should not have confined it to regularisation. 19. The petitioners in this writ petition were qualified doctors who, according to them, have had their rights under Articles 14 and 16 violated due to the state respondents’ failure to conduct a recruitment process in accordance with the Rules 2006. 20. The writ petitioners in WP(C) No.187/2004 are also the doctors who initially served during the COVID-19 pandemic, after a due selection process, like the private respondents. According to them, such a specialised drive should have covered their cases as well, since they have satisfied the minimum requirement of 100 days of service during the COVID-19 period. According to them, they were compelled to resign from their services for the reason that, they were not granted study leave for higher studies. 21. The learned single judge dismissed both the writ petitions on the ground that the petitioners in WP(C) No.239/2024 did not even acquire the required qualification of MBBS when the private respondents were recruited during COVID-19 period. Therefore, they have no locus standi to challenge the government's policy decision to regularise the services of the private respondents who were appointed after a due selection process during the COVID-19 pandemic. 22. Similarly, the writ petition, WP(C) No. 187/2004, was also dismissed on the same ground of locus-standi. The learned Single Judge concluded that the petitioners did not continue in their services and, therefore, they cannot be aggrieved for the regularisation of the service of the private respondents, and they are not similarly situated. Thus, they also do not have any locus-standi to challenge such a policy decision to regularise the services of the private respondents, who were appointed during the COVID-19 pandemic, through a due selection process. 23. Thus, they also do not have any locus-standi to challenge such a policy decision to regularise the services of the private respondents, who were appointed during the COVID-19 pandemic, through a due selection process. 23. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties, and perused the material available on the records. 24. Admittedly, the appellants in WA No. 25/2025 were not qualified at the time of the initial engagement of the private respondents during the COVID pandemic, nor could they participate in such a selection process. 25. It is not in dispute that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the state of Nagaland issued a public advertisement inviting applications for contractual appointments of medical officers, nurses, specialists, and other categories of doctors to meet the urgent and unprecedented public health crisis. The candidates were selected through a recruitment process. 26. It is essential to record that the appointments were explicitly designated as temporary, with a clause in the appointment order stating that no claim for regularisation shall be entertained. 27. Though initially the appointment was for a short-term tenure, their services were extended, and the Private respondents have worked continuously to date. That their services were repeatedly extended due to prolonged health emergencies and resource constraints in the hospitals is undisputed. 28. Due to the prolonged crisis, their services continued for four years. The state cabinet, after failing to hold a special recruitment drive for these doctors through the Nagaland Public Service Commission, decided to conduct a one-time special recruitment through the department, comprising a written examination and an interview exclusively for these COVID-19 doctors. 29. Those who qualified in the selection process were recommended for the regularisation against sanctioned vacancies created at the initial stage of their engagement and during the COVID-19 pandemic. 30. The appellants in WA No. 25/2025 are MBBS graduates who concede that they were not qualified for the initial COVID-19 recruitments, nor were they eligible to participate in the special recruitment confined to COVID-period appointees. 31. In the aforesaid backdrop of facts and determination made by the learned single judge, let us first address the point of locus-standi. 32. Only a person whose legal right is infringed may maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 31. In the aforesaid backdrop of facts and determination made by the learned single judge, let us first address the point of locus-standi. 32. Only a person whose legal right is infringed may maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the appellants in Writ Appeal No. 32/2025 were not eligible during the initial COVID-19 engagement or the subsequent special requirement, no legally enforceable right of theirs is shown to be affected. The learned single judge, therefore, rightly held that they lack locus-standi. 33. Notwithstanding this, as the issue concerns a large class of public employment, we examine it on its merits as well, in the backdrop of the allegation of violation of rights under articles14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 34. In our estimation, during extraordinary circumstances such as the present one, the state is constitutionally empowered to conduct a special, one-time recruitment exercise, provided there is no statutory prohibition and the process remains transparent and rational. 35. In the case in hand, even the initial temporary engagement of the private respondents was made through a selection process after the creation of the sanctioned posts, when one set of appellants was not even eligible to participate in such a selection process. The other set of appellants, though engaged, left the job on their own to pursue higher studies. 36. In the given facts of the present case, it cannot, therefore, be said that the private respondents are back-door entrants or that any right of the appellants was violated at that stage. 37. The State Cabinet approved the special recruitment with a written test and an interview, which was a structured evaluation of doctors who had already served the state for several years under exceptional conditions. It was not regularisation simpliciter but confined to a distinct class engaged earlier against sanctioned vacancies through a due selection process. 38. The Constitution recognises that exceptional situations permit exceptional measures. 39. The COVID-19 situation undeniably constituted an unprecedented public health emergency. 40. It is true that regularisation must not defeat the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity in public service through open competition. In that context, it is argued that the special recruitment violates statutory rules requiring appointments through the Public Service Commission; however, in our estimation, under Article 162, the executive may regularise the serving employees under it, in the absence of a statutory prohibition. 41. In that context, it is argued that the special recruitment violates statutory rules requiring appointments through the Public Service Commission; however, in our estimation, under Article 162, the executive may regularise the serving employees under it, in the absence of a statutory prohibition. 41. A deviation from PSC procedure in an exceptional one-time context does not automatically render the recruitment/regularisation illegal, particularly where the process ensures transparency and fairness. 42. In the aforesaid context, the next question is whether COVID-period doctors formed a valid separate class under Article 14. 43. The Private respondents were recruited during an unprecedented health emergency, worked under hazardous conditions and rendered continuous service, when the entire health machinery was under strain. This constitutes a distinct class, factually and legally different from other job seekers and thus these features constitute an intelligible differentia. 44. The objective behind their special recruitment and regularisation is to retain experienced personnel, to recognise extraordinary service, and to fill long-standing vacancies in critical health institutions. The classification, therefore, has a clear rational nexus to the object sought. Therefore, the arguments based on Article 16 also fail. 45. One set of the appellants was never entitled to participate in the COVID-19 engagement or the special recruitment. The other set lost their opportunity to participate in the special recruitment for their own because they preferred higher studies over serving citizens in government hospitals. 46. Above that, their rights to compete in open recruitment through the Public Service Commission remain untouched, particularly when it is admitted that there are vacancies to fill through the Nagaland Public Service Commission, and the impugned special selection was a one-time exercise. 47. Article 16 ensures equal opportunity among those eligible for the post. It does not confer a right to participate in a class-specific recruitment justified by exceptional circumstances. 48. Regularisation following a competitive selection cannot be labelled as a backdoor entrant. Instead, it reflects a balanced approach that acknowledges the emergency service while ensuring merit-based evaluation. 49. The appellants rely on the disclaimer in the original appointment orders that no claim of regularisation shall be entertained. In our view, this only bars the temporary appointees from demanding regularisation as of right; however, it does not fetter the state's constitutional authority to adopt a policy of regularisation at a later point in time, which is based on a rational decision. 50. In our view, this only bars the temporary appointees from demanding regularisation as of right; however, it does not fetter the state's constitutional authority to adopt a policy of regularisation at a later point in time, which is based on a rational decision. 50. Once the state consciously adopts a policy based on public interest with due cabinet approval, such a clause cannot operate as a prohibition on regularisation, particularly when the private respondents were appointed against sanctioned vacancies after a due selection process. 51. This Court must also note the public interest dimension. The state needs a stable cadre of trained medical personnel. Replacing seasoned COVID doctors with fresh appointees would cause disruption and is contrary to institutional needs and patient care, particularly when the initial entry is not tainted. 52. Judicial review of policy choices is minimal. Unless a decision is arbitrary, discriminatory, malafide or unconstitutional, the courts refrain from interfering. The appellants have demonstrated none of this. 53. The special recruitment is one-time, closed-class, merit-based and cabinet-approved. Therefore, a policy regularising Covid-19 Doctors does not per se violate Articles 14 or 16, since it is based on a uniform, transparent and non-arbitrary criterion i.e. length and nature of service rendered, and performance in the selection process. It therefore meets the constitutional scrutiny under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 54. In the given facts of the present case, this court can aptly place reliance on the decisions of the hon’ble Apex Court in Jaggo –Vs- Union of India, [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826] and Shripal and Another Vs Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad [2025 SCC Online SC 221] wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court cautioned that when the government institutions are entrusted with upholding the principle of fairness and justice, they bear a greater responsibility compared to the private entities to avoid exploitative employment such as temporary employment, contracts affecting job security. The Apex Court emphasised the principle that long-term temporary and contractual employees performing essential and perennial public work should be considered for regularisation, which has, in fact, been done by the State of Nagaland under a clear policy. Therefore, such exercise should not be lightly interfered with in the exercise of the power of judicial review. 55. While parting with the records, as a note of caution, we record here that the principle laid down in Ayub Khan Noor Khan Pathan Vs. Therefore, such exercise should not be lightly interfered with in the exercise of the power of judicial review. 55. While parting with the records, as a note of caution, we record here that the principle laid down in Ayub Khan Noor Khan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra [ 2013 (4) SCC 465 ] ; relied on by the learned Single Judge, may not be applicable in the present case inasmuch as the same was rendered in a different context of a challenge to a caste certificate by a person who cannot be treated as an aggrieved person, in the background fact that such person did not belong to Scheduled Caste community. However, in the present case, we affirm the determination of the learned Single Judge that, in the given facts of the present case, the appellants cannot be said to be aggrieved persons against the decision to regularise the services of the Private Respondents, as no right of theirs has been infringed. 56. For the discussions made and reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no infirmity in the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. 57. The appeals accordingly fail and are dismissed—no order as to cost. 58. The state is permitted to proceed with the regularization under the Special Recruitment Drive, if it has not already been completed.