JUDGMENT - M.S. DESHPANDE, J.:---It would be convenient to take these two petitions for consideration together as the main point, which is raised in these two petitions, relates to the validity of Clause No. 9 of the Resolution of the Government of Maharashtra, Education and Employment Department, dated 21st May, 1983, which prohibits the transfer of a student from one institute to another. 2. The two petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1892 of 1986, after passing the examination in Diploma in Pharmacy from Datta Meghe Polytechnic, Nagpur, which is affiliated to the Board of Technical Education, Maharashtra State, made an application in June, 1984, for admission to respondent No. 1 - Institution and were admitted in August, 1984, to the First Year Course in Bachelor of Pharmacy, the tuition-fees for the course being Rs. 6,000/- per annum. The petitioners having passed IInd Year Examination of Bachelor of Pharmacy in First Division in July 1986, took admission in the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences affiliated to the Nagpur University. They applied for a transfer certificate to respondent No. 1 on 1st August, 1986, but were told that transfer certificates would not be issued, unless a donation of Rs. 50,000/- was paid by each of them. Respondent No. 1, having raised the contention that the petitioners had executed an agreement in its favour that they would not seek a transfer from the Institutions, and that the Rules framed by the Government Resolution aforesaid prohibited transfer from the Institution to another, the petitioners amended the petition by contending that while they were in examination-hall, their signatures were obtained on the so-called agreements and that they had not read what the contents were and they never executed any agreement to that effect. It is also urged that the agreements, if any, were against the public policy and void. With regard to the rule prohibiting transfer from one institution to another, it was urged that those rules are violative of Article 14 of the constitution. In any even, it was urged that one student Abhay Vishwasrao Bhuthal, who had passed his First Year B. Pharm. Examination from respondent No. 1-Institution, had applied for getting a transfer-certificate for securing admission in another Institute which was getting Government grant, was given a transfer-certificate after he paid donation to respondent No. 1. In any even, it was urged that one student Abhay Vishwasrao Bhuthal, who had passed his First Year B. Pharm. Examination from respondent No. 1-Institution, had applied for getting a transfer-certificate for securing admission in another Institute which was getting Government grant, was given a transfer-certificate after he paid donation to respondent No. 1. The petitioners, therefore, prayed for a direction to respondent No. 1 to issue transfer-certificates to them and for a direction to respondent No. 2, the Registrar, Amravati University, to issue migration-certificates. By amendment it was prayed that Clause 9 of the Government Resolution, dated 21st May, 1983, prohibiting the students from obtaining transfer from the institute not getting grant to Institutes getting the grant, be declared as ultra vires and unconstitutional as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 3. In Writ Petition No. 1910 of 1986, the three petitioners had passed 12th-Standard examination in the year 1984-85, and in the year 1985-86 were admitted to the Nagpur College of Pharmacy, the second respondent therein, which was recognised by the State of Maharashtra. The petitioners had paid fees for the academic year 1985-86, amounting to Rs. 6,500/- and also paid Rs. 1,000/- as deposit to be refunded after the completion of the course, the course being of four-years, for which the B. Pharm Examination is being conducted by the Nagpur University, respondent No. 1 therein. The three respondents were successful in the Part 1, B. Pharma Examination and applied for admission to the Department of Pharmaceutical Science, Nagpur University, (respondent No. 3) and were granted admission by the letter, dated 13th August, 1986, subject to certain conditions, one of the conditions being to obtain a transfer-certificate. Respondent No. 2, however did not issue a transfer-certificate, in spite of the letter by the Registrar of the Nagpur University, asking the principal to comply with the request of granting the transfer-certificates as per rules. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 2 wrote to the petitioners that they would not he admitted to the IInd Year Degree Course as they had not applied for the same. Respondent No. 3, by the letter, dated 16th September, 1986, informed the petitioners that their admission would be discontinued from 23rd September, 1986 if the transfer-certificates were not produced. The grievance of the petitioners is that, as the annual fees in the Department of Pharmacy (respondent No. 3) amount only to Rs. Respondent No. 3, by the letter, dated 16th September, 1986, informed the petitioners that their admission would be discontinued from 23rd September, 1986 if the transfer-certificates were not produced. The grievance of the petitioners is that, as the annual fees in the Department of Pharmacy (respondent No. 3) amount only to Rs. 562/-, respondent No. 2-Institution charges Rs. 6,500/- per annum and so they were asked by respondent No. 2 to pay Rs. 19,500/- as a condition for issuing a transfer certificate in order to avoid loss to the Institution. The petitioners contended that the education cannot be allowed to be made a commerce and the entire action of respondent No. 2 is violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution, and the rule, if any, prohibiting transfer from one institution to another, would be null and void. They, therefore, sought a direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 4, i.e., Nagpur University and Maharashtra state, to direct respondent No. 2-Institution to issue the transfer-certificates under the pain of withdrawing recognition and cancelling affiliation with the University, an also a direction to respondent No. 3 the Department of Pharmaceutical Science, Nagpur University, not to cancel the admission of the petitioner in B. Pharm. Part II Course by acting on the letter Annexure-G to the petition. 4. The contention raised on behalf of respondent No. 1-Institute of Pharmacy, Janata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Pusad, in Writ Petition No. 1892 of 1986, and Nagpur College of Pharmacy, managed by Magar Yuwak Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur-respondent No. 3 in writ Petition No. 1910 of 1986 ('the respondents', for short) are identical. They contend that they started courses in Pharmacy subject to the conditions prescribed by the Maharashtra State and Directorate of Technical Education in the policy decision taken by the Government of Maharashtra by its Resolution, dated 21st May, 1983, by which permission was given to institutions which are ready to conduct various technical courses on no-grant basis, because of the rapid industrial development which had taken place during the past twenty years, creating a demand for highly technical man-power, which could not be made because the Institutions imparting technical education were few, and the policy of the Government was to encourage technical education. The Technical Institutions were also facing a problem of limited admissions and in order to meet these difficulties, private Institutions were permitted to impart technical education, subject to the various conditions mentioned in the Resolution on no-grant basis. Relying on the permission granted, expenses amounting to lacs of rupees were incurred by the private Institutions. One of the clauses of the Government Resolution was that student from a non-aided Institution cannot take admission in subsequent year to any aided Institution, nor transfer from non-aided Institution to the aided institution is permissible. Relying on this condition and also the agreement which the petitioner had entered into, containing a term that they would not take transfer during the four-years' Degree Course, the admissions were granted, and any admission granted to the petitioners by the Department of Pharmaceutical Science of Nagpur University, without insisting upon a transfer-certificate and without obtaining the permission of the Director of Technical Education, would not be valid. They, therefore, urged that the petitions were not maintainable, and in any event, no writ could be asked against the respondents institution which were not the Governmental agencies but were run by private managements. 5. Nagpur University and the Department of Pharmaceutical Science of Nagpur University rested content by denying the allegations made by the petitioners, only for want of knowledge and urged that the petitions should be dismissed. 6. The Director of Technical Education and the State Government contended that the two Institutions were permitted to run Degree courses in Pharmacy on no-grant basis under the Government letter, dated 15th June, 1985, and the Department of Pharmaceutical Science run by Nagpur University being an aided-institution, the transfer of the petitioners from respondents-institutions to the Department of Pharmaceutical Science was not permissible. 7. We will first take up the contention regarding Rule No. 9 of the Government Resolution dated 21st May, 1983, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The argument was that distinction was sought to be made between the students of aided institutions and non-aided institutions without any reasonable basis for the classification, and the classification has no nexus with the objects sought to be achieved. The argument was that distinction was sought to be made between the students of aided institutions and non-aided institutions without any reasonable basis for the classification, and the classification has no nexus with the objects sought to be achieved. The circumstances, which led to the passing of the impugned resolution, are stated in the opening paragraph of the resolution which runs as follows: "While there has been continuous industrial development in the State of Maharashtra during the last two decades, the number of Technical and Technological Colleges and Polytechnics and their intake capacity in the State have not increased adequately, with the result that there is a keen demand for Technical personnel from industries which cannot be fulfilled with existing facilities. The question, whether this demand could be met, at least partially, by permitting non-Government agencies to open Technical and Technological Colleges and Polytechnics as also the principles on which such Colleges and Polytechnics should be permitted was under consideration of Government for some time past." The Government, therefore, directed that from the year 1983-84, non-Government Technical and Technological Colleges and Polytechnics should be permitted on certain principles, they being covered by the eleven clauses mentioned in para-2 of the Resolution, the main features being that the Rules and Regulations for the regular admissions shall he the same as announced every year by the Director of Technical Education and there shall be no difference between rules and regulations for admissions these institutions and the other existing institutions. Clauses 2 and 3 deal with the building and other equipments and Clause 4 deals with the land and financial requirements which should be at least 20 acres and Rs. 30,00,000/- respectively. Clause 5 relates to ensuring future provision for courses in Degree and Diploma in emerging technologies, whereas clause 6 relates to the requirements regarding the staff, maintenance and audit. By clause 7, the institute will be permitted to charge higher fees as may be decided by the Government of Maharashtra and permitted by the Director of Technical Education for different courses at different levels, i.e., for Technical Colleges and Polytechnics. Clause 8 lays down that subject to eligibility, conditions of affiliating bodies, 10% of annual intake of the admissions in each institution is set aside for the management at its discretion. Clause 8 lays down that subject to eligibility, conditions of affiliating bodies, 10% of annual intake of the admissions in each institution is set aside for the management at its discretion. Clause 9, which is being challenged by these petitions, is as follows :--- "There shall be no transfer of students or staff from such institutions to other existing institutions on any ground at any stage. A student desirous of transfer from an institution getting grant-in-aid to an institution getting no grant from Government, may however, be permitted." Clause 10 is with regard to the Hostel accommodation for girls and Clause 11 stipulates that the claims for grant-in-aid for non-recurring and recurring expenditure shall not be permitted by Government at any stage at any time. 8. It is apparent that for meeting the need for additional trained personnel, opportunities were being extended to private institutions for providing technical education, and as they were to be run on no-grant basis, certain concessions were being extended to them by enabling them to charge higher fees. It was evidently with a view to ensure that the financial condition of these institutions does not suffer and the institutions remained viable that higher fees were permitted and the transfer of the students was prohibited to a institution which received grant, the reason being that the institutions receiving grants, charged lower fees and so there would be migration to the aided-institutions. Transfer of non-aided-institutions was permitted evidently in order to bring financial stability to them, because the entries to these institutions would be at the option of the students willing to pay higher fees. 9. The submission on behalf of the petitioners was that invidious discrimination was being made in respect of the students who had secured admission originally to aided-institutions and those who had perforce to secure admission to non-aided institutions. It must be noted that as public purpose was sought to be served by allowing private institutions to impart technical education, because the aided-institutions, which were few in number were not in a position to take in all the students who were desirous of receiving technical education, resulting in an acute shortage of technical personnel. It would be only those, who were left out because they could not secure admission in the aided-institutions, who would go to the non-aided institutions. It would be only those, who were left out because they could not secure admission in the aided-institutions, who would go to the non-aided institutions. If such institutions were not permitted and the provision now made by the Resolution dated 21st May, 1983, were unavailable, a large number of students would have been required to forego technical education. In fairness to the learned counsel for the petitioners, we must state that they did not urge that the Resolution dated 21st May, 1983, did not serve a public purpose or that it did not ameliorate the condition of those who could not secure admissions to technical institutions otherwise. 10. It appears to us that Clause 9 of the impugned resolution is only a corollary to the concessions extended to the new non-aided institutions as it enabled them to charge higher fees and retain the students who had secured admissions, throughout the duration of the Course, without which it would not be possible for the private managements to run their institutions. Clause 9, which is only a part of the whole scheme, cannot be separated and considered independently of the scheme which otherwise seems to us to be unexceptionable. The argument, that allowing the new non-aided institutions to charge higher fees would amount to rendering the education system to commerce, does not impress us. The fees are made subject to the regulatory control of the Government and rules regarding instructions which were issued by the State Government and the University are to be made applicable uniformly to the existing institutions as well as the institutions which are to be run on no-grant basis. 11. In (D.P. Joshi v. The State of Madhya Bharat)1, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 334, while dealing with the question of capitation fees, which were to be charged from non residents of the State, while no such fees were to be charged by the residents of Madhya Bharat, the Supreme Court observed as follows:--- "We are in this petition concerned with a Medical college, and it is well known that it requires considerable finance to maintain such an institution. If the State has to spend money on it, is it unreasonable that it should so order the educational system that the advantage of it would to some extent at least ensure for the benefit of the State? If the State has to spend money on it, is it unreasonable that it should so order the educational system that the advantage of it would to some extent at least ensure for the benefit of the State? A concession given to the residents of the State in the matter of fees is obviously calculated to serve that end, as presumably some of them might, after passing out of the College settle down as doctors and serve the needs of the locality. The classification is thus based on a ground which has a reasonable relations to the subject-matter of the legislation, and is in consequence not open to attack." Though it was urged that classification solely on geographical basis may be under the present trend open to question, that point does not arise in these petitions. A scheme by which the provision for technical education is being made by allowing charging them higher fees and preventing transfers in order to facilitate opening of institutions for the less meritorious students for whom the State may not be in a position to open additional institutions cannot be branded as arbitrary. We are unable to accept the submission that the classification here is invidious and that it has no nexus with the object to be achieved, i.e., the spread of technical and higher education. 12. On behalf of the petitioners, reliance was placed on the observations in (Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India)2, A.I.R. 1979 S.C, 1628, to that effect that every action of the executive Government must be based on rational reasons and should be free from arbitrariness, which is the very essence of the rule of law. But as observed in (Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi)3, (1981)1 Supreme Court Cases 722, the doctrine of classification which is evolved by the Courts is not paraphrase of Article 14 nor is it the objective and end of that article. It is merely a judicial formula for determining whether the legislative or executive action in question is arbitrary and, therefore, constituting denial of equality. It is only if the classification is not reasonable and does not satisfy the two conditions that the impugned executive action can be regarded as arbitrary and in breach of the constitutional guarantee under Article 14. We do not multiply authorities on this point, because the principle is not, at all, in doubt. It is only if the classification is not reasonable and does not satisfy the two conditions that the impugned executive action can be regarded as arbitrary and in breach of the constitutional guarantee under Article 14. We do not multiply authorities on this point, because the principle is not, at all, in doubt. With regard to clause 9 of the impugned resolution, we are satisfied that it is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, that it being a part of a whole scheme, cannot be separated and the scheme itself, together with clause 9, cannot, in any way, be regarded as opposed to the public policy as envisaged by section 23 of the Contract Act either. 13. It was urged on behalf of the respondents-institutions that the petitioners had entered into agreements that they will not seek a transfer from the institutions during the duration of the course. In Writ Petition No. 1910 of 1986, the learned counsel for the respondent-institutions, pointed out that at page 14 of the Prospectus, under the caption "General Instructions", it was mentioned that the students shall not ask for transfer from this institute to any other institute in any circumstances. Our attention was drawn to a similar stipulation in the agreement of Janta Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Pusad, Institute of Pharmacy, respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 1892 of 1986, which formed part of the agreement to which the student and his father were to append their signatures, that he shall not ask for transfer from the aforesaid College to any other College under any circumstances. 14. Shri Baxi, the learned counsel for the petitioners in that case, urged that the amendment which was introduced in para 4(a) in the petition, was not controverted, though it was stated that the signatures of the petitioners on the so-called agreements, which were Annexures B and C to the return, were made without their knowledge and were obtained under undue influence, taking advantage of the situation that the students were in the Examination Hall and appearing for the examination. It must be noted that the amendment came to be made after respondent No. 1 filed its return and the petition as initially brought has suppressed these agreements. We are not impressed by the belated plea that the signatures were obtained under undue influence or under the circumstances mentioned in the petition. It must be noted that the amendment came to be made after respondent No. 1 filed its return and the petition as initially brought has suppressed these agreements. We are not impressed by the belated plea that the signatures were obtained under undue influence or under the circumstances mentioned in the petition. It is not necessary to go into the efficacy of these agreements, in view of clause 9 of the Resolution, dated 21st May, 1983, which imposed a prohibition on transfer. 15. The argument on behalf of the petitioners was that there cannot be any estoppel against or waiver in respect of fundamental rights. There cannot be any doubt about this position, in view of the decision in (Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi)4, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 149, that it is not open to a citizen to waive his fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution, but it must be shown that there was, in fact, a breach of the fundamental rights of the petitioners. At one stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that it was the fundamental right of the petitioners to receive education, but when we pointed out that under Article 45 in Part IV of the Constitution, the provision is only that the State shall endeavour to provide, within the period of ten years from commencement of the Constitution, a free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years, the argument was not persuade. We do not find any answer from the petitioners to the clear requirements of Clause 9 of the Government Resolution, dated 21st May, 1983, and the agreements which were in consonance with aforesaid clause 9. No other challenge was pressed before use. 16. We may refer to the letter, dated 13th August, 1986 written by the Professor and Head of the Department of Pharmaceutical Science of Nagpur University, to respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 1910 of 1986, by which he was informed that his application for admission to B. Pharm. II of the Department can be considered subject to five conditions, which included production of the transfer certificates form H.S.S.C. onwards and testimonials and subject to production of No Objection Certificates from the Director of Technical Education for necessary action. II of the Department can be considered subject to five conditions, which included production of the transfer certificates form H.S.S.C. onwards and testimonials and subject to production of No Objection Certificates from the Director of Technical Education for necessary action. These documents were not produced by any of the petitioners before the Department of Pharmaceutical Science of Nagpur University. On the other hand, the letter, dated 13th October, 1986, Annexure R-13 in Writ Petition No. 1910 of 1986, written by the Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State, to the Vice Chancellor, Nagpur University, drew the attention of the Vice Chancellor to the letter dated 14th August, 1986 written by Principal Nagpur college of Pharmcy, on the subject of transfer, and was informed as follows: "This office is not understanding as to under which circumstances not want to transfer the students of Nagpur College of Pharmacy in Medicine Department. Such transfers will create bad precedence against the rules of the State. Hence, it is requested that you reconsider and do not give transfer to the students in Medicine Department from the institutions run on no-grant basis." 17. When the rules were clear and the material documents were not produced, it is regrettable that on 14th August, 1986, provisional admission was given to the petitioner No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 1910 to 1986 to B. Pharm. II subject to the condition Nos. 1 to 5 mentioned in the letter dated 13th August, 1986, and his agreement to produce them by August 20. Ordinance No. 1.4 (ii) (of the Nagpur University Ordinance Book Edition 1979-81) requires Migration Certificates and other necessary details regarding the students immigrating from other necessary details regarding the students immigrating from other Universities or Boards to reach the Registrar on or before the 1st day of October of the academic year concerned in the prescribed form, while under Ordinance 2.1, a student applying for admission to a College shall produce a School Leaving Certificate, as the case may be, signed by the Head of the Institution/College last attended by him. In Writ Petition No. 1910 of 1986, since both the institutions and the University's Department of Pharmaceutical Science were located at Nagpur, no Migration Certificate was necessary, but in Writ Petition No. 1892 of 1986, a Migration Certificate was necessary, as the respondent No. 1 therein was located within the jurisdiction the Amravati University and the students wanted to migrate to Nagpur University. We are told that after the admissions were given to the petitioners in both these cases by the Department of Pharmaceutical Science, Nagpur University they had not only received instruction but also appeared at the Examination and passed, and are still receiving information with the Department for the sole reasons that these petitions were pending. We find that both the Director of Technical Education, State of Maharashtra, and the respondents institutions were insisting upon the observance of the rules not only by the petitioners but also by Nagpur University and its Department of Pharmaceutical Science, and it is to be regretted that the letter did not respect Clause 9 of the Government Resolution dated 1st May, 1983. We find that the petitioners could not have been admitted to the Department of Pharmaceutical Science of Nagpur University, without flouting Clause 9 aforesaid and the agreements, and we are satisfied that respondent institutions are right in insisting that their students, who were admitted by the Nagpur University, Department of Pharmaceutical Science, should be made to return to the respondents-institutions, because not doing so, would set a bad precedent and make the scheme under the Government Resolution dated 21st may ,1983 unworkable. We are conscious that the petitioners would be subjected to heavy financial burdens, in the event of their being made to pay the higher fees which were payable to the respondents-institutions but we are informed by the respondents-institutions that they will not insist upon the fees which were payable to them by these erring students for the duration for which they received instruction in the University Department of Pharmaceutical Science, and we appreciate this gesture. Mrs. Shinde, the learned Counsel for the University also stated that in the event of our finding their admissions to the University Department of Pharmaceutical Science being unwarranted, the University would give the students credit for the attendance which they have put in, in the University Department of Pharmaceutical Science. Mrs. Shinde, the learned Counsel for the University also stated that in the event of our finding their admissions to the University Department of Pharmaceutical Science being unwarranted, the University would give the students credit for the attendance which they have put in, in the University Department of Pharmaceutical Science. In the result, we discharge the rule made in both the petitions and direct the respondent No. 1 institution in Writ Petition No. 1892 of 1986, and respondent No. 2 institution in Writ Petition No. 1910 of 1986 to readmit the petitioners in the respective writ petitions to their institutions, without charging any fees for the period for which they have received instructions in the Department of Pharmaceutical Science, Nagpur University, in the course for the year for which they have received instructions with the said Department, and we further direct the Nagpur University and the respondents-institutions to give the credit to the petitioners for the attendance which they have put in, in the University Department of Pharmaceutical Science. It is made clear that after their re-admission to the respective institutions, the petitioners would be liable to pay such fees which may have been approved by the Government to the respective institutions. In view of the circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to the costs of these petitions. Order accordingly. -----