Judgment :- 1. These three writ petitions came to be posted on being specially ordered by the Honourable Chief Justice vide order dated 03.07.2012. 2. In the first writ petition viz. W.P.No.15003 of 2008, the petitioner is St. Joseph Teacher Training Institute, Karaikal and they are seeking to challenge the order dated 25.05.2006 passed by the first respondent Union Territory of Pondicherry in G.O.Ms.No.64, Chief Secretariat (Education) and after setting aside the same, seek for a direction to the second respondent Directorate of School Education, Puducherry, to approve the admission of 100 candidates as per the list annexed, made by the petitioner to the Diploma in Teacher Education Course both under the CENTAC and Management quota for the academic year 2007-2008. 3. By the impugned Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.64, the Union Territory of Pondicherry approved the Regulations stipulating domicile requirement for admission of students in the Private Professional Educational Institutions in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. Under the said Government Order, the domicile requirement was for admission of 50% of the sanctioned intake in Private Professional Educational Institutions to be filled up on the basis of merit from the candidates belonging to the Union Territory of Pondicherry. 4. The writ petition in W.P.No.15003 of 2008 was admitted on 25.06.2008. Pending the writ petition, the respondents were directed to permit the students admitted by the petitioner institution to write the examination and the results were directed to be withheld until further orders. It was also made clear that it will not confer any right either to the students or to the institution. 5. Subsequently, one Association of Unaided B.Ed., College and Teacher Training Institutions of Pondicherry Union Territory filed the writ petition in W.P.No.6550 of 2010 challenging not only G.O.Ms.No.64, Chief Secretariat (Education) dated 25.05.2006, but also G.O.Ms.No.72, Chief Secretariat (Education), dated 15.07.2008. 6. By the impugned order in G.O.Ms.No.72, Chief Secretariat (Education) dated 15.07.2008, it was stated that the Directors of respective Department have informed the Government that the number of seats under Government sponsored quota for admission to Private Professional Educational Institutions were going vacant for want of sufficient number of eligible candidates. Further, the Director of School Education has also informed that only limited number of vacancies would arise in future and job opportunities for Teacher trainees passing out such institutions would be very limited. Further, the Director of School Education has also informed that only limited number of vacancies would arise in future and job opportunities for Teacher trainees passing out such institutions would be very limited. Therefore, a policy decision was taken by the Government not to constitute a CENTAC i.e. Centralised Admission Committee for B.Ed., and Diploma in Teacher Education Course for sponsoring 50% of seats in Private Professional Education Institutions. Henceforth, the Private Professional Educational Institutions were required to fill up the seats under the supervision of Permanent Admission Committee. But the Committee should ensure that that the Private Professional Educational Institutions admit students based upon the eligibility criterial stipulated by NCTE/Pondicherry University. The Permanent Admission Committee was also directed to ensure that 50% of the admitted candidates are those belonging to Union Territory of Pondicherry in accordance with the earlier order in G.O.Ms.No.64, dated 25.05.2006. 7. The writ petition in W.P.No.6550 of 2010 was admitted on 01.04.2010. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay of G.O.Ms.No.21, Chief Secretariat (Education), dated 10.02.2010 was granted for a limited period. Subsequently, the interim order was directed to be continued from time to time. On 09.08.2010, the interim stay was made absolute. 8. Thereafter, the same Management namely, St.Joseph Teacher Training Institute, Karaikal has filed a second writ petition in W.P.No.8213 of 2011 challenging G.O.Ms.No.64, Chief Secretariat (Education), dated 25.05.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.72, Chief Secretariat (Education), dated 15.07.2008 as well as the proceedings dated 21.12.2010 passed by the third respondent Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Lawspet, Puducherry, in so far as it insists upon the domicile norm and for a direction to the respondents to approve the admission of 41 candidates listed in the annexure, made by the petitioner in the Diploma in Teacher Education Course after the CENTAC have lapsed seats for the academic year 2010-2011. 9. The writ petition in W.P.No.8213 of 2011 was admitted on 30.03.2011. Pending the writ petition, this Court directed the respondents to permit the 41 students named in the annexure to appear for the practical examination to be commenced for Diploma in Teacher Education without prejudice to the right of both parties and the students were directed to be informed that their results will be published subject to the outcome of the writ petition. 10. 10. Though an application in M.P.No.4 of 2011 in W.P.No.8213 of 2011 was filed seeking direction to the respondents to publish the results of the Diploma in Teacher Education examination of the 41 candidates, the said application was closed, since the main writ petition was directed to be posted for final hearing. 11. The respondents have filed counter affidavits in W.P.Nos.6550 of 2010 and 8213 of 2011. 12. In the counter affidavit filed by the Director of School Education, Government of Puducherry, on behalf of other respondents in W.P.No.6550 of 2010, it was stated that the Government, in accordance with the judgments of the Courts, issued the Pondicherry Private Professional Educational Institution (Provision of Reservation, Admission of Students and Fixation of Fees) Regulations, 2006, vide G.O.Ms.No.63, Chief Secretariat (Education) dated 25.05.2006. As per the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, the Government can provide for regulations that will ensure excellence in education in the Unaided Professional Institutions and in order to see that any capitation fee is charged, two Committees headed by retired High Court Judges were appointed. G.O.Ms.No.63, Chief Secretariat (Education) dated 25.05.2006 provided for General Category of admission and Management Category of admission. Pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.63, the Government issued the order in G.O.Ms.No.64, Chief Secretariat (Education) dated 25.05.2006, to regulate the admission of 50% of the seats under General Category. The said G.O.Ms.No.64, is not in violation of the earlier order in G.O.Ms.No.63. The Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.64 is not a separate Government Order and it has to be read along with the earlier Government Order. Under the said Government Order, 50% of the General Category seats has to be filled up by taking into account the domicile requirement and those 50% of the General Category seats through CENTAC system from the academic year 2005-2006, only as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.63. Later, the Government of Pondicherry has taken a policy decision to dispense with the Centralised Admission Committee (CENTAC). The Government had studied in depth regarding the issue of filling up of General Category seats of Resident candidates by the non-resident candidates and evolved a policy to approve the admission by way of collection of Rs.2,000/- per nonresident of Pondicherry admitted against Resident seats. Accordingly, G.O.Ms.No.21, Chief Secretariat (Education) dated 10.02.2010 was issued by the Government and it does not infringe the right to fill up the Management category seats which is now 100%. Accordingly, G.O.Ms.No.21, Chief Secretariat (Education) dated 10.02.2010 was issued by the Government and it does not infringe the right to fill up the Management category seats which is now 100%. When the matter of regularising the admission of non-resident students over and above the resident quota was under consideration of the Government, the institution gave an undertaking that they shall abide by the decision to be taken by the Government and they will not breach the undertaking and turn around and question the Government for imposing the condition. 13. However, the Association of Unaided B.Ed., College and Teacher Training Institutions of Puducherry Union Territory already made representations to the Director of School Education, Directorate of Education, Pondicherry on 03.03.2010 and 15.03.2010 stating that even when the Government was willing to provide full fees for students admitted under Government quota, there were no candidates available in the Union Territory of Pondicherry and hence, the institutions were forced to admit non-domicile candidates. Therefore, they requested withdrawal of G.O.Ms.No.64 providing for admission of 50% students with the domicile candidates. 14. Mr.P.V.S.Giridhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners referred to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in MINOR P.RAJENDRAN AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MADRAS AND OTHERS [ AIR 1968 SC 1012 (1)] for contending that admission to be made on the basis of territorial classification was not valid and there is no nexus between the classification and the object to be achieved. He also stated that inasmuch as the institutions are having approval of the National Council for Teacher Education and they are strictly governed by the guidelines issued by the NCTE, the contrary regulations framed by the State Government will be not valid and the Central Act will prevail over the said act in respect of any repugnance between the two. 15. However, in this case, it is unnecessary to go into the larger issue of domicile requirement in respect of 50% of seats to be reserved under Centralised Admission Committee category. 15. However, in this case, it is unnecessary to go into the larger issue of domicile requirement in respect of 50% of seats to be reserved under Centralised Admission Committee category. Since the Government itself has given up the policy of Centralised admission and allowed the Management to fill up the seats on the basis of the supervision of oversight committee, the very domicile requirement itself become irrelevant and in fact, the Director of School Education himself has stated that even though the Government is willing to provide the entire fee of local students after being admitted to the Teacher Training Course, no one was forthcoming to get admitted to the institutions. Perhaps the job opportunities are very lean and hence, the students are not willing to attend the institution. Under the said circumstances, the respondent Union Territory of Pondicherry instead of standing on a so called policy of domicile requirement for admission of candidates, should have given freedom to the Institutions for admitting candidates even under the non-domicile category. However, the procedure that in such circumstances, the institution should pay Rs.2,000/- for admitting a non-domicile students against the domicile category itself is an arbitrary demand. When there is no domicile candidates available, the question of keeping any domicile quota will not arise. 16. The very power of the Government to reserve certain category of seats itself is doubtful proposition in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra [ 2005 (6) SCC 537 ]. In fact, the Supreme Court has held that the State Government cannot impose a policy of reservation in respect of seats to be filled up by the Management. If the Union Territory is interested in having the local candidates admitted to its colleges, they can very well prepare a list of candidates to be admitted and send the list of those of candidates well in advance for admission of students before a particular cut off date. But on the contrary, the Government itself has given up the policy of Centralised administration done by CENTAC. Therefore, even that procedure has become not relevant. Once they have given up the policy, thereafter seeking for the oversight committee to insist upon the earlier Government Order, also has no meaning. But on the contrary, the Government itself has given up the policy of Centralised administration done by CENTAC. Therefore, even that procedure has become not relevant. Once they have given up the policy, thereafter seeking for the oversight committee to insist upon the earlier Government Order, also has no meaning. The further demand that as against the admission of non-domicile candidates, in respect of domicile quota, the amount of Rs.2,000/- to be paid by the State is also not based upon any power with the State Government. On the contrary, the institutions are expected to pay only the fees, which are to be paid lawfully to the concerned authorities. The Government cannot indirectly charge fees over which it has no direct say in the matter. 17. Under the said circumstances, all the writ petitions are allowed the impugned orders of the Government stand set aside. The petitioner institutions are free to admit non-domicile students, after following fair procedure of admission and the requirement of the fee of Rs.2,000/- in respect of the said candidates of the Union Territory is illegal and hereby stands cancelled. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.