Moa Jamir
Dimapur | August 25
The Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench (GHCKB), on August 19, struck down the recruitment process for 61 Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) and Female Health Worker (FHW) posts under the Nagaland Staff Selection Board (NSSB), citing “serious and glaring irregularities.”
Consequently, the NSSB on August 22 formally announced the cancellation of entire process and said a fresh recruitment would be notified after the State amends the Nagaland Nursing Services Rules, 1988 (Rules 1988) complies with the Court’s directives.
The Morung Express breaks down the reasons behind the scrapping of the ANM/FHW recruitment exam.
The Trigger
The case centres around the NSSB’s December 15, 2023 advertisement for 61 ANM/FHW posts under the Department of Health and Family Welfare (DoHFW), Nagaland.
After a written exam on February 24, 2024, the Board published a shortlist of 370 candidates for the viva-voce on May 22.
Soon after, the Unemployed ANM Association complained that the list excluded FHW certificate holders, especially from earlier batches, prompting the NSSB issued a corrigendum on May 23 adding 68 names.
The abrupt change led 17 petitioners, who featured in the first list but were dropped in the second, to move the High Court alleging arbitrariness, illegality, and violation of their right to equal opportunity under Article 16 of the Constitution.
Petitioners’ Case
The petitioners argued that the advertisement clearly required a “two-year ANM course,” which the 68 new entrants did not possess. They said the corrigendum gave no explanation, rendering it unlawful.
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, their counsel stressed that public orders must stand on the reasons given within, not later explanations through affidavits.
The NSSB was also charged of acting with “lightning speed” without consulting the DoHFW or following its own rules in issuing the corrigendum.
They further argued that Rule 43 of the NSSB Regulations, 2020, prohibits revising results once declared, and the removal of their names after shortlisting effectively “changed the rules of the game after the match was over.”
The Board was also accused of misleading the Court, pointing out that NSSB’s affidavit claiming FHWs were entirely excluded in the first list was false as two such candidates had been included.
The Defence
The DoHFW cited the Rules 1988, which require “Class X with two years training as ANM/FHW” as the essential qualification and argued that ANM and FHW were equivalent posts, and that the advertisement’s “two-year ANM course” was based on later Indian Nursing Council guidelines.
The NSSB defended the corrigendum as a corrective step, claiming the first list wrongly excluded FHWs.
It said the revision was based on marks, not re-evaluation of scripts, and therefore did not breach Rule 43.
Since final results were yet to be declared, the Board argued, the “rules of the game” had not been altered.
Other respondents maintained that in cases of conflict, statutory rules override advertisements, while the petitioners were also charged of misleading the Court by downplaying the equivalence of ANM and FHW training.
The Findings
After hearing both sides, the Court found multiple contradictions and lapses, staring with the DoHFW requisition itself, which deviated from the 1988 Rules by prescribing “10+2 with ANM diploma” instead of “Class X with two years ANM/FHW training.”
The NSSB further altered this by advertising only a “two-year ANM course,” omitting FHW altogether.
These inconsistencies, the Court said, created “chaos and confusion.” It ruled that neither the Department nor the NSSB could alter qualifications without amending statutory rules.
The corrigendum of May 23 was also deemed invalid as it offered no reasons for revising the list.
Issuing two contradictory lists on consecutive days without explanation, the Court concluded, “compromised the sanctity of the process” and violated Article 16(1) of the Constitution.
The NSSB was also faulted for its procedural failures Regulation 18(1) of the 2020 Regulations, as it failed to properly scrutinise applications and, by not publishing a rejection list, deprived candidates of a chance to seek legal remedy.
The Directions
Accordingly, Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita quashed the entire exercise undertaken starting from ANM/FHW posts section of December 15 NSSB advertisement to publication of second list on May 23.
The NSSB was directed to notify the cancellation widely in newspapers and on its website, which it did on August 22.
The State was ordered to amend the Nagaland Nursing Services Rules, 1988 within 45 days to clearly define ANM/FHW qualifications and directed to submit a fresh requisition to the NSSB within 15 days of the amendment.
Further, the Board was directed to issue a new advertisement within 15 days of receiving the requisition and complete the entire process within six months.
Candidates from the scrapped recruitment are allowed to reapply, with age relaxation for the period between the December 2023 advertisement and the new one.
The NSSB was also told to prepare a clear timeline for each stage and strictly comply with its 2020 Regulations.
