IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : February 12, 2026 ANANYA -PETITIONER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Prashant Singh Chauhan, Advocate, and Mr. Rahul Sangwan, Advocate, for Mr. Shokeen Singh Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr. Arjun Pratap Atma Ram, Advocate, and Ms. Ananya Kalia, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

Mr. Nilesh Kant Goyal, Advocate, for Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate for the respondents No.3 and 5.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of a direction to the respondent No.2, Murari Lal Rasiwasia Ayurvedic College and Hospital, Charkhi Dadri, to refund the tuition fees for the B.A.M.S. course (excluding the 1^st year), amounting to ₹7,17,122/-, which petitioner was compelled to deposit as a pre-condition for issuance of a ‘No Objection Certificate’ to enable her migration to another college after completion of the 1^st year at the respondent No.2- College.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance upon the Migration Regulations adopted by Shri Krishna AYUSH University, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as “AYUSH University”), submits that a college is entitled to charge tuition fee for the month in which migration is permitted by the University, and the college from where the student migrated is not entitled to charge fee for fraction of a month. It is further contended that the respondent No.2 erroneously treated the petitioner’s migration as abandonment of the course, whereas the petitioner migrated to another college only after obtaining a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the respondent No.2, that too with approval of AYUSH University and continued her course. Therefore, such migration cannot, in any circumstance, be construed as leaving the B.A.M.S. course. Consequently, the respondent No.2 is not entitled to retain the sum of ₹7,17,122/- (comprising the fee for the 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th and half year), which was deposited under compulsion for issuance of the ‘No Objection Certificate’.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 mounts a robust defence anchored in the Haryana Government's notification dated 02.08.2019 governing procedure for admission to B.A.M.S./B.H.M.S. for the academic session 2019-2020 (petitioner's admission period). He contends that Paragraph 7 thereof clearly provides that if any candidate having joined the course, leaves the course after last counseling by the University, then he/she shall have to pay entire course tuition fee of the respective college. This paragraph further mandates the execution of a bond by candidates with the college at the time of reporting for admission. Much emphasis is laid on the expression “respective college” occurring in Paragraph 7 to contend that the demand raised by the respondent No.2 for the full course tuition fees was strictly in consonance with the governing notification, which forms an integral part of the college prospectus and binds all candidates.

4. Further, reliance is placed upon the Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medicine) Amendment Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “Regulations of 2016”), to submit that migration is regulated by the said statutory framework. It is submitted that the ‘No Objection Certificate’ was issued in compliance with Regulations 9 and 11 thereof.

5. Continuing his submissions, learned counsel submits that the petitioner’s migration resulted in a vacant seat, thereby causing financial loss to the respondent No.2. It is contended that although vacant seats are ordinarily required to be filled up to the last round of counselling, in the present case, since the petitioner left the college after completion of her 1^st year, the seat remained vacant. Accordingly, Paragraph 7 of the admission notification dated 02.08.2019 was rightly invoked.