CHENNAI: Observing that in-service government doctors must be encouraged to continue to render service to the government health care institutions, the Madras High Court has binned the petitions filed against providing a separate quota for in-service government doctors and offering weightage marks based on services rendered in rural and hilly areas in the admission to postgraduate (PG) medical courses.
The petitions were filed by seven non-service doctors challenging regulation 9 (4) of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2000 and a G.O. of the Tamil Nadu government dated November 7, 2020, providing reservations to in-service doctors. The petitioners also questioned the weightage marks offered for in-service candidates serving in rural and hilly areas.
Disposing of the petitions, the first bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu said, “The in-service candidates are to be encouraged. The government faces a public health crisis. The effective and competent medical treatment is required to be made available in rural, hilly and remote areas,” it said.
Senior counsel P Wilson appeared for the TN Medical Officers Association while Advocate General (AG) R Shunmugasundaram and Additional AG J Ravindran appeared for the state government and the directorate of medical education (DME).
‘Can’t charge 11% registration fee retrospectively’
Madras High Court has ruled against enforcing an amendment made to the Registration Act, enabling the charging 11% fees for registration of sale certificates secured after the purchase of properties sold through auction by banks with retrospective effect.
Allowing a batch of petitions filed by purchases seeking filing of the sale certificate in Book No 1 of the registration authority, Justice R Suresh Kumar on Monday ordered that the amendment made to the Registration Act for charging the 11% fees shall come into force on March 23, 2023, when the G.O. for the amendment was issued and not retrospectively.
He directed the registration department authorities to register the sale certificate in Book No. 1 of the registering authority under section 89 (4) of the Registration Act without collecting the 11% charges. Referring to the stamp duty and registration charges already paid by some of the petitioners, the judge directed the department to refund the charges with 6% interest from the date of the receipt of the amount till it is repaid.
The petitioners approached the court after the registration department forced them to pay 7% stamp duty and 4% registration fees for registering the sale certificate for properties purchased through auction. When the Supreme Court struck down such charging of stamp duty and registration fee, the state government amended the Registration Act in order to levy an 11% filing fee.