Private Unaided Veterinary College Cannot Charge Tuition Fee During Internship Period: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that a private unaided veterinary college cannot charge tuition fee from students during the mandatory internship period of the B.V.Sc. & A.H. course, as doing so would be exploitative and contrary to the scheme and intent of the Veterinary Council of India (VCI) Regulations.The Court partly allowed a batch of writ petitions filed by...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that a private unaided veterinary college cannot charge tuition fee from students during the mandatory internship period of the B.V.Sc. & A.H. course, as doing so would be exploitative and contrary to the scheme and intent of the Veterinary Council of India (VCI) Regulations.
The Court partly allowed a batch of writ petitions filed by veterinary graduates and directed the private respondent college to refund the tuition fee collected during the internship period within three months.
Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor said, "We are therefore of the considered opinion that permitting respondent No. 3 to charge tuition fee during the period of internship, which is an apparent dichotomy, would run counter to the intent and object of the governing VCI regulations, and would make the very object of payment of internship allowance, a farce. It would tantamount to unjust enrichment and exploitation of the interns, which is impermissible as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court."
Speaking for the bench Justice Rohit Kapoor explained, internships and Apprenticeships are terms sometimes used as synonyms, however, they may vary in terms of the duration, term, structure etc. Apprenticeships are governed by the Apprentices Act, 1961, and the rate of stipend that an employer is required to paid, is as per the prescribed minimum rates. However, there is no legislation, governing Internship.
"The VCI regulations mention that internship allowance would be paid as per rates fixed by the institute concerned. While it has long been felt that there is an urgent need to have uniformity in the rates at which internship allowances are paid, as it would keep in check exploitative practices that may be adopted by certain institutes, yet, no steps have been taken till date, in this regard. Be that as it may, we would refrain from passing any directions in this regard, as we are of the opinion that the matter needs to be examined by the competent authority in the first instance," it added.
Background
The petitioners were students of a private unaided veterinary college affiliated with Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (GADVASU), Ludhiana. They were enrolled in the Bachelor of Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry (B.V.Sc. & A.H.) programme.
Under the VCI's Minimum Standards of Veterinary Education Regulations, 2008 (and later 2016), the course consists of academic study followed by a compulsory rotating internship. During this internship, students are provisionally registered as veterinary doctors and are required to render full-time veterinary services, including emergency and night duties, under supervision.
The petitioners challenged the action of the college in charging tuition fee for the internship period, contending that No teaching, study or examinations are conducted during internship. Interns perform professional duties akin to employed veterinary doctors and the VCI Regulations mandate payment of internship allowance, not collection of tuition fee.
The Court examined the VCI Regulations in detail and noted that the internship commences only after completion of all academic and credit requirements.
It found that interns are provisionally registered and render professional veterinary services and the internship is full-time and interns are prohibited from taking up any other paid or unpaid employment.
Regulation 9 expressly mandates payment of internship allowance, along with provision of facilities such as accommodation and transport.
The Bench observed that internship is not “education” or “tuition” in the conventional sense, but rather a period of compulsory professional service. Charging tuition fee during this period would negate the very purpose of paying internship allowance.
Importantly, the Court noted that GADVASU itself never charged tuition fee during the internship period, even for self-financed seats and the University filed an affidavit confirming that no tuition fee has ever been levied during internship.
It pointed that from 2023 onwards, even the respondent private college has been barred from charging internship tuition fee. NRI students were not required to pay tuition fee during internship, highlighting arbitrariness.
The Court held that charging tuition fee during internship amounted to indirectly taking back the mandatory internship allowance, which is impermissible. Such practice was found to be exploitative and tantamount to unjust enrichment, contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation, Islamic Academy of Education, and P.A. Inamdar.
“What cannot be done directly, cannot be permitted to be done indirectly,” the Court observed.
The Court also applied the principle of estoppel, noting that the college itself had initially demanded only half of the fifth-year tuition fee, acknowledging that no tuition could be charged for the internship period.
Internship Allowance: No Direction on Enhancement
On the issue of enhancement of internship allowance, the Court declined to issue directions.
It noted that the VCI Regulations leave fixation of internship allowance to the discretion of the University/Institution.
There is no statutory framework prescribing minimum or uniform internship allowance, unlike apprenticeships governed by the Apprentices Act, 1961.
Judicial review under Article 226 is limited in the absence of violation of a statutory provision.
While acknowledging the need for uniformity to prevent exploitation, the Court held that the matter must first be addressed by the competent authority or regulator. The petitioners were granted liberty to approach the appropriate authority for framing guidelines or policy.
In the light of the above, the Court held that no tuition fee could have been charged during the internship period.
The respondent private college was directed to refund the tuition fee collected for the internship period to the petitioners within three months from the date of submission of a certified copy of the judgment, it added.
Mr. Sardavinder Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Sarwinder Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-5467-2020 & CWP-844-2020.
Mr. Suneet Singh Deol, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP-18680-2023.
Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate and
Mr. Devant Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP-6920-2021.
Mr. Maninder Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Gursher Singh Bhandal, Advocate for respondent No.2-University.
Mr. Arvind Seth, Sr. Panel Counsel for the respondent(s)-Veterinary Council of India in CWP-5467-2020 & CWP-844-2020.
Mr. Himanshu Malik, Advocate for respondent No.3- College.
Title: Akin Saroya & others v. State of Punjab & Others