The condition requiring the petitioner to serve the college for the rest of his service career was found to be void as it was against public policy and unreasonable in the context of the Faculty Improvement Programme.

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. 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, t