Tuesday, March 11, 2025
How Many PG Medical Seats Available This Year? Check Out NMC's Updated Seat Matrix
Below are the MD, MS seats details:
Speciality Total Seats
MD General Medicine 5349
MS General surgery 4905
MD Anaesthesiology 4786
MS Obstetrics & Gynaecology 4049
MD Paediatrics 3402
MS Orthopaedics 2934
MD Pathology 2870
MD Radio Diagnosis/Radiology 2663
MD/MS - Ophthalmology 2008
MD Social & PreventiveMedicine /Community Medicine 1787
MS Otorhinolaryngology (ENT) 1614
MD Microbiology 1560
MD Dermatology, Veneronology & Leprosy 1418
MD Pharmacology 1314
MD Psychiatry 1269
MD/MS - Anatomy 1223
MD Physiology 1187
MD Bio-Chermistry 1098
MD Tubercurosis & Respiratory Diseases/ Pulmonary Medicine 885
MD Forensic Medicine /Forensic Medicine & Toxicology 732
MD Emergency Medicine 470
MD Radiotherapy/ Radiation Oncology 424
MD Respiratory Medicine 221
MD Immuno Haematology & Blood Transfusion 164
MD physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 87
MD Geriatric 56
MD Hospital Administration 42
MD Nuclear Medicine 26
MD Palliative Medicine 25
MD Sports Medicine 21
MD Family MEDICINE 20
MD- Aviation Medicine/Aerospace Medicine 17
MD TRANSFUSION MEDICINE 12
MD Tropical Medicine 11
MS-TRAUMATOLOGY & SURGERY 8
MD Lab Medicine 5
MD Radiation Oncology 5
MD Bio Physics 1
Total Seats 48668
No Private Practice During Duty Hours! Karnataka Tightens Rules For Doctors
Kerala girl dies after following YouTube diet: What went wrong? Her doctor explains
குழந்தைப் பருவத்தைக் கொண்டாடுவோம் !
Monday, March 10, 2025
அன்பைத் தடுக்கும் கைப்பேசி!
NMC rejects patient’s appeal to ethics board, says only doctors can do so
EMRB is vacant? It looks like Aneja’s appeal was rejected by some functionary in the EMRB division who just copied an earlier letter. Such a casual approach is shocking,” said Dr KV Babu, ophthalmologist and RTI activist, who has been fighting since 2022 to get the right of patients to appeal restored.
NMC overrules SC’s and its own decision, rejects patient’s appeal
RTI request denied, petitioner told PIO was ‘on leave’
Although the petitioner submitted his application in Feb, the reply he received earlier this month said the details he sought were with headmaster S Ezhil, and could not be provided as he was on leave. The response was sent by the headmaster, but it was undersigned in green ink by an unidentified person. “If the PIO concerned is on leave, the assistant PIO can furnish the information. The undersigned did not disclose who he/she is. The reply raises many doubts,” said Kasimayan, adding that he would file a complaint before the information commission.
Saturday, March 8, 2025
NEET aspirant kills mother, critically injures father after being told to stop using mobile in Madhya Pradesh
Madras HC imposes ₹5L on TN govt for ‘unnecessary’ appeal
Indian Railways: You can book an entire train! Just know the right procedure

Thai man finds entire snake frozen inside ice cream bar, internet is horrified
Reliance Jio introduced recharge plan without data, will get 365 days validity
Sitting for long hours has the same consequences as smoking, drinking?
AP veterinary students protest low stipends, demand parity with MBBS interns

Can aspirin prevent cancer from spreading?
Madras High Court Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs On State Of Tamil Nadu For “Re-Agitating” Case Which Had Already Been Decided By Supreme Court
Upasana Sajeev
7 Mar 2025 3:06 PM

The Madras High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs. 5 Lakh on the State of Tamil Nadu for filing a writ appeal in a matter that had already attained finality through the order of the Supreme Court.
Dismissing the appeal filed by the State, Justice R Subramanian and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the appeal was a “re-agitation” of a matter that had already been settled by a division bench of the Court and approved by the Supreme Court. Thus, the court imposed a cost directing the state to pay Rs. 2,50,000 to the sanitary worker whose appointment was challenged and the remaining Rs. 2,50,000 to be paid to the Madras High Court Legal Services Authority.
“Since we find that this appeal is re-agitation of a matter, which is already settled by a Division Bench of this Court and approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we impose cost of Rs.5,00,000/- on the Government. A cost of Rs.2,50,000/- is to be paid through the College to the person appointed as a Sanitary worker and the remaining sum of Rs.2,50,000/- shall be paid to the Madras High Court Legal Services Authority. The Government is granted four weeks time to comply with the order of the learned single Judge. Costs shall be paid within a period of 15 days from today,” the court said.
The state had filed the appeal challenging an order of the single judge approving the appointment of a Sanitary worker in St. Chritopher's College, which was a minority educational institution.
As per Rule 11(1) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Rules 1976, the Government was to grant aid for the appointments made by the Institution. The State, however, issued a Government Order on October 24, 2013, to fill up Group-D posts in Government Aided Arts and Science College through contractual workers in an attempt to prevent private aided colleges from making regular appointments.
When the GO was challenged, the High Court allowed the plea and quashed the GO in 2017. The Government unsuccessfully challenged the single judge's order. The division upheld the order and dismissed the appeal in 2019. The issue was also a subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition. The SLP was dismissed by the SC in 2022, making the quashment of GO final.
In the present case, the college approached the court after the Directorate of Education failed to approve the appointment of a sanitary worker. The single judge allowed the college's plea and ordered the State to grant the approval.
Though the state relied on a single judge's order to argue that the government had a right to pass a Government Order regulating the appointment to sanctioned posts in Government aided colleges, the court noted that the single judge's order was unsustainable as it ran counter to the order already upheld by the Supreme Court. The court held that though the Government had the power to regulate appointments in Government aided Colleges, it could not be done by way of administrative order contrary to the rules already in force.
Thus, finding no merit, the court dismissed the appeal.
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.D.Ravichander Special Government Pleader
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.P.Godson Swaminathan for M/s.Isaac Chambers
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. The Principal Secretary
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 94
Case No: W.A.No. 574 of 2025
OnePlus Nord 4 Gets Massive Rs 8,000 Price Cut: Should You Buy It?
-
NBEMS launches official WhatsApp channel for real-time updates The platform will offer timely updates on examinations, accreditation, and tr...
-
கொடிகட்டிப் பறந்த எம்.ஜி.ஆர் நூற்றாண்டில் கொடிக்கும் சின்னத்துக்கும் சிதறும் அதிமுக By -திருமலை சோமு | ...


















