HC terms tuition fee during veterinary internship exploitative, orders refund to students

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a private unaided veterinary college could not have charged tuition fee during the compulsory internship period, while ruling that such a practice was exploitative and defeated the very purpose of paying internship. The court has ordered refund of the tuition fee collected during internship from the petitioner-students.

The petitioner-students were seeking quashing of respondent-college’s action of charging tuition fee during the ‘internship period’ as neither studies nor examination was held during the period. Among other things, the petitioners contended that they were to perform duties as provisionally registered veterinary doctors in accordance with the Veterinary Council of India regulations.

The Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor asserted: “It is thus abundantly clear that internship allowance is mandatorily required to be paid under the VCI regulations, upon the recognition of the fact that the interns are performing all functions of ‘assisting veterinary doctors’, and are required to be paid remuneration for their services.”

The court asserted the regulations’ perusal showed that the interns were to assist/perform all duties of a veterinary doctor and were granted provisional registration by the competent authority for the purpose. The internship programme was full-time and included emergencies and night duties, even on Sundays and holidays.

“It is abundantly clear that internship allowance is mandatorily required to be paid under the VCI regulations, upon the recognition of the fact, that the interns are performing all functions of ‘assisting veterinary doctors’, and are required to be paid remuneration for their services. Their engagement amounts to employment and deployment in the veterinary clinics is not for training simplicitor,” the Bench added.

Against the regulatory backdrop, the Bench found the practice of charging tuition fee during internship fundamentally incompatible with the scheme of the VCI regulations. “We find force in the argument by counsel for the petitioners that charging a huge amount as ‘tuition fee’ during the period of internship, when the interns are to be paid remuneration, would clearly be exploitative and would tantamount to taking away the mandatory amount of internship allowance, by indirect means. It is well settled, that what cannot be done directly, cannot be permitted to be done indirectly,” the Bench added.

The court also rejected the argument that the college, being unaided, enjoyed unbridled powers in the matters of charging fee. “We are not much impressed by the argument that on account of the alleged ‘supervision’ of the interns, the college would become entitled to charge ‘tuition fee’ as was being charged during the period of course of study,” the Bench added.

The court also took note of the fact Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana, had never charged tuition fee for internship in its constituent colleges; the private college itself had been debarred from charging such fee from 2023 onwards; and the internship allowance paid by the private college was “almost half” of what was being paid by the university. The court further recorded that permanent boarding and lodging were not provided to interns unless they separately opted and paid for hostel facilities.

“We are of the considered opinion that permitting the respondent college 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,” the Bench added

On the second issue—whether the court could direct payment of internship allowance at enhanced rates—the Bench declined to intervene. “We find that no rates or guidelines have been fixed in this regard”. The petitioners were represented by counsel Sardavinder Goyal, Sarwinder Goyal, Suneet Singh Deol, Vaibhav Narang and Devant Khanna.