Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Whether the condition, whereunder a person signs away his liberty for ever by executing a bond to serve as an employee under a particular employer for the rest of his service career, is valid or invalid is the question raised in the present writ petition. 3. It is necessary to notice the facts in brief : (i) The petitioner has joined as a Lecturer under the fourth respondent college on 16.1.1978. Subsequently, on the basis of the scheme floated by the University Grants Commission relating to Faculty Improvement Programme, where under one person from each college is to be selected from among the Selection Grade Lecturers to undergo Ph.D. Course, the petitioner, having been permitted by the College, went for such higher studies. Initially, the petitioner was selected in the year 1994-1995, but, since the formalities could not be completed, he could not avail of the facility that year and he undertook the course in the year 1995-1996. As per the UGC guidelines, the salary for the substitute Lecturer, during the year when the petitioner was absent, was reimbursed by the UGC. Thereafter, the petitioner has acquired Ph.D. and has rejoined the College. As per G.O. Ms. No.1777 Education Department dated 12.8.1976, an undertaking is to be obtained from the person undergoing such training to serve the college for a period to be specified. Apparently, as per the said Government order, the second respondent herein viz., the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, wrote a letter to the petitioner on 25.11.1995 stating that the petitioner is required to serve the college for the rest of his service career or in the alternative, to refund the entire amount. Per force, the petitioner had to sign that undertaking lest he would be deprived of the opportunity of undergoing the Ph.D. course. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuing a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus for quashing Clause 3 of the proceedings of the second respondent in Mu.Mu. No.A3/2612/95 dated 25.11.1995 and also clause 6 of G.O. Ms. No.1777 dated 12.8.1976 Education Department in so far as it relates to the petitioner. (ii) Clause 3 of the letter dated 25.11.1995, which is impugned in the present writ petition is to the effect that the petitioner has to serve in the same college for the rest of his service career. No.1777 dated 12.8.1976 Education Department in so far as it relates to the petitioner. (ii) Clause 3 of the letter dated 25.11.1995, which is impugned in the present writ petition is to the effect that the petitioner has to serve in the same college for the rest of his service career. Clause 6 of the relevant G.O. of the Government is to the effect that "the teachers should give an undertaking to serve the college atleast for a period to be specified by the Director of Collegiate Education after returning from the study leave or to refund a proportionate amount received by them." 4. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated by respondents 1 and 2 that on the basis of the direction contained in the aforesaid Clause 6, the second respondent had called upon the petitioner to give an undertaking to serve the college for the rest of his service career and since the petitioner has given such an undertaking voluntarily, it is not open to the petitioner to go back, at this stage, regarding such undertaking. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, inclusion of such a portion in the form of undertaking being against the public policy should be taken to be void. In this context, he has further submitted that since the Government does not bear any of the expenditure and that the expenditure is borne by the UGC, which has not incorporated any such condition, the Government has acted arbitrarily by insisting upon inclusion of such a clause. It is submitted that assuming that Clause 6 of the Government Order is valid and reasonable, the second respondent has gone beyond such clause, insisting that the petitioner should serve the rest of the service career in the said college. 6. Section 27 of the Contract Act reads as follows: "Every agreement by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void." 7. The main purpose for providing the facility under the Faculty Improvement Scheme is obviously for improving the skill of the particular Lecturer so that such Lecturer can serve the society in a better manner. The main purpose for providing the facility under the Faculty Improvement Scheme is obviously for improving the skill of the particular Lecturer so that such Lecturer can serve the society in a better manner. Supposing the scope in a particular college is not commensurate with the skill and the degree of a particular Lecturer, it would be most inappropriate to expect that any such Lecturer with high qualification is to be forced to work in the said college for the rest of his service career even though he may get openings in other colleges. 8. The counsels appearing for respondents 3 and 4 have stated that in view of the Government order, the undertaking had been taken and the Government direction being justified, the petitioner has to serve as per the undertaking. 9. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that since service benefits had been given to the concerned teachers during their period of training for the purpose of undergoing the Ph.D. course, the Government have every right to prescribe certain conditions. It has been stated that the intention in prescribing such condition is to curtail the practice of persons who obtain research qualification under the scheme by getting salary from State funds and resigning the job at a later date and accepting a job elsewhere. However, there is no bar on such teachers to continue in teaching profession in different colleges in Tamil Nadu or in any University situated in Tamil Nadu on migration with proper approval. The period of contractual obligation was originally five years and it was subsequently raised until retirement. Unless such a condition is stipulated, there is every possibility that the beneficiary under this scheme might migrate even to foreign countries by showing disregard to utilise his services to the mother country. 10. Even though the aforesaid stand apparently reflects lofty ideas, I am afraid such a stand cannot be countenanced. First of all, in the present case, the undertaking itself recites that the person has to serve in the very same college till his retirement. The portion of the counter already extracted indicate that the intention was to confine the work of the concerned Lecturer in some colleges or Universities within the State. The counter does not seek to justify the actual undertaking which is to the effect that the petitioner has to serve the very same college till his retirement. The portion of the counter already extracted indicate that the intention was to confine the work of the concerned Lecturer in some colleges or Universities within the State. The counter does not seek to justify the actual undertaking which is to the effect that the petitioner has to serve the very same college till his retirement. Moreover, the contention in the counter to the effect that the beneficiary might migrate even to a foreign country by showing disregard to the need to utilise his services for the mother country is also a theoretical assertion as the petitioner is obviously deprived of any such opportunity. Apart from the fact that imposition of such conditions is likely to affect the right of the citizen of India under Article 19 of the Constitution to carry on his profession in any part of the country, the imposition of a condition to the effect that the person is required to serve in a college for the rest of the service career must be taken to be against the public policy. It has to be kept in view that the University Grants Commission, which is bearing the major part of the expenditure when the petitioner was doing the Ph.D. course, has not thought it fit to impose such a condition. To expect a particular Lecturer to work for a reasonable period in a particular institution, or may be within a particular State, may be reasonable. As a matter of fact, in the Government order, it is only indicated that such undertaking should be to serve for a specific period and obviously to give a direction that he shall serve till his retirement is not contemplated in the Government order which indicates that such restriction can be for a specific period. If the undertaking would have been taken from the petitioner asking him to serve for a reasonable period, possibly there would not be any objection from the part of the petitioner. Since the undertaking has been taken to the effect that he has to serve till the rest of his service career, the present grievance has been raised by the petitioner. 11. It is no doubt true that at the time he went for his studies, he had given the undertaking. Since the undertaking has been taken to the effect that he has to serve till the rest of his service career, the present grievance has been raised by the petitioner. 11. It is no doubt true that at the time he went for his studies, he had given the undertaking. But it has to be remembered that if such an undertaking would not have been given at that stage, possibly the first and second respondents would not have permitted the petitioner to go and join the course. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the condition as imposed by the third respondent is found to be most arbitrary and has to be quashed. However, the question as to whether the Government order itself is vitiated or not need not be decided in this writ petition. The petitioner has already served for more than five years. In the facts and circumstances, it can be said that insisting the petitioner to serve for a period of five years after completion of his Ph.D. may be considered to be reasonable and the undertaking is modified to that extent and must be taken to the effect that the undertaking was for a period of five years from the date of completion of Ph.D. The writ petition is allowed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.758 of 1996 is closed.