Punjab & Haryana High Court Bars Private Veterinary Colleges from Charging Tuition Fee During Internship; Holds Practice Exploitative and Contrary to VCI Regulations
Case Name: Akin Saroya and Others v. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: 12 December 2025
Citation: CWP-5467-2020 and connected cases
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rohit Kapoor
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court partly allowed a batch of writ petitions filed by veterinary students and held that private unaided veterinary colleges cannot charge tuition fee during the compulsory internship period. The Court held that interns perform full-time professional duties as provisionally registered veterinary doctors and are statutorily entitled to internship allowance under the Veterinary Council of India Regulations. Charging tuition fee during internship was held to be exploitative, amounting to indirect deprivation of mandatory remuneration and unjust enrichment. However, the Court declined to issue directions for enhancement or uniform fixation of internship allowance.
Summary: The petitions were filed by students of a private unaided veterinary college challenging the demand of tuition fee for the compulsory internship period and seeking parity in internship allowance with other universities regulated by the Veterinary Council of India. The petitioners contended that during internship no teaching or examinations are conducted and that interns are required to perform full-time professional veterinary duties, including emergency and night duties, for which the Regulations mandate payment of internship allowance.
The High Court undertook a detailed examination of the Veterinary Council of India Regulations governing the B.V.Sc. & A.H. programme and found that internship commences only after completion of all academic requirements and grant of provisional registration. The Court held that interns are not trainees simpliciter but are effectively deployed as working veterinary professionals under supervision, making payment of internship allowance mandatory.
The Court rejected the argument that a private unaided institution enjoys unfettered discretion to charge fees, holding that autonomy does not extend to practices resulting in exploitation or profiteering. Noting that the affiliated University itself never charged tuition fee during internship and that the respondent college had later been barred from doing so, the Court found the impugned demand to be inconsistent with the object of the Regulations. The earlier conduct of the college in charging only half fee was also held to attract estoppel.
On the issue of internship allowance, the Court held that in the absence of statutory rates or policy guidelines, fixation of allowance falls outside the scope of judicial review under Article 226. The petitioners were left at liberty to approach the competent authority for framing appropriate policy in this regard.
Decision: The writ petitions were partly allowed. The respondent private college was restrained from charging tuition fee during the internship period and was directed to refund the amounts already recovered from the petitioners for internship within three months. The prayer for enhancement or parity of internship allowance was declined.