JUDGMENT : M. JOTHIRAMAN, J. 1. The present intra Court appeals have been instituted challenging the writ orders passed in the writ petitions on different dates. Since the issues to be considered are common, these writ appeals have been tagged together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The unsuccessful writ petitioner has preferred writ appeal in WA.(MD)No.267 of 2023. All other writ appeals have been filed by the unsuccessful official respondents. 3. It is the case of the appellant/writ petitioner in WP.(MD)No.14175 of 2020 that Centrally Sponsored Scheme namely "Support to State Extension Program for Extension Reforms Scheme (SSEPERS)- Agricultural Technology Management Agency (ATMA)” is being implemented to operate the Agricultural Extension Reforms across the country. This scheme is being implemented in 385 blocks of all 31 Districts of Tamil Nadu except Chennai, following the guidelines issued by the Government of India. In the guidelines, the State Government is permitted to engage the Block Technology Manager (BTM) and Assistant Technology Manager (ATM) on contract basis through the mechanism identified by the State with graduate in Agriculture/Allied Sector as educational qualification. The Government of India has released the required funds for implementation of the said Scheme in the ratio of 60:40 between the Central Government and the State Government. As per ATMA Guidelines, the posts of Block Technology Manager and the Assistant Technology Managers can be engaged at block level on contract basis to carry out the extension activities. As per the said scheme, the New Life Placements Private Limited appointed the petitioner as Block Technology Manager in Budalur Block, Thanjavur District. Initially, he was appointed as Assistant Technology Manager and it was in temporary basis. He was paid with monthly honorarium of Rs. 20,000/- and monthly allowance of Rs.5000/-. Periodically, his contract employment was extended by the New Life Placements Private Limited and the appellant is continuously working as Block Technology Manager at Agricultural Technology Management Agency (ATMA) Project in the office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Budalur Block, Thanjavur District. However, all of a sudden, without issuing any notice and conducting any enquiry, the service of the appellant was terminated by the second respondent. The learned Writ Court by an order dated 23.01.2023 dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant was engaged only based on the scheme and no appointment order was issued to him. However, all of a sudden, without issuing any notice and conducting any enquiry, the service of the appellant was terminated by the second respondent. The learned Writ Court by an order dated 23.01.2023 dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant was engaged only based on the scheme and no appointment order was issued to him. Hence, the termination order issued by the officials is perfectly valid and there is no need to issuing show cause notice before issuing the order of termination. Aggrieved over the same, the writ petitioner has preferred WA.(MD)No.267 of 2023. 4. The first respondent in WA.(MD)No.360 of 2026/ K.Chandramohan has challenged the termination order issued by the officials. According to him, he was working as temporary contractual employee under ATMA scheme. By the impugned order dated 29.09.2020 by the District Collector, Dindigul, he was terminated from service. The learned Writ Court allowed the writ petition by an order dated 08.03.2023 on the ground that when the ad hoc appointment is under the scheme and is in accordance with the selection process prescribed by the scheme, there is no reason why those appointed under the scheme should not be continued as long as the scheme continues. Aggrieved over the same, official respondents have preferred writ appeal in WA.(MD)No.360 of 2026. 5. Unsuccessful official respondents have preferred appeal in WA. (MD)No.1842 of 2024 by challenging order passed in WP.(MD)No. 13351 of 2020 dated 21.03.2023. The respondent/writ petitioner / M.Premsekar has challenged the termination order passed by the District Collector, Trichy. 6. Unsuccessful official respondents have preferred appeal in WA. (MD)No.1843 of 2024 by challenging order passed in WP.(MD)No. 13365 of 2020 dated 21.03.2023. The respondent/writ petitioner/ S.Abirami has challenged the termination order passed by the District Collector, Trichy. 7. Unsuccessful official respondents have preferred appeal in WA. (MD)No.1844 of 2024 by challenging order passed in WP.(MD)No. 13377 of 2020 dated 21.03.2023. The respondent/writ petitioner/ K.Dinesh Kumar has challenged the termination order passed by the District Collector, Trichy. 8. Unsuccessful official respondents have preferred appeal in WA. (MD)No.1845 of 2024 by challenging order passed in WP.(MD)No. 13372 of 2020 dated 21.03.2023. The respondent/writ petitioner/ R.Asvini has challenged the termination order passed by the District Collector, Trichy. 9. The above said writ petitions have been allowed by the learned Writ Court by order dated 21.03.2023 and 08.03.2023 as under:- 8. Unsuccessful official respondents have preferred appeal in WA. (MD)No.1845 of 2024 by challenging order passed in WP.(MD)No. 13372 of 2020 dated 21.03.2023. The respondent/writ petitioner/ R.Asvini has challenged the termination order passed by the District Collector, Trichy. 9. The above said writ petitions have been allowed by the learned Writ Court by order dated 21.03.2023 and 08.03.2023 as under:- 8. The specific stand of the petitioner is that he is not responsible for updating or uploading the details of the beneficiary in the relevant web portal. Therefore, if any fraud has been committed, he is not responsible for the same. The defence of the petitioner may be well-founded or ill-founded. For a moment, I am not on that. The petitioner has been charged with involvement in a fraudulent activity. It definitely casts stigma on the petitioner. When a governmental authority casts stigma on a person, it cannot be done without complying with the elementary principles of natural justice. Since the petitioner is only a scheme employee, there may not be any need for conducting any elaborate domestic or departmental enquiry as is done in the case of a regular government employee. But then, there must be observance with the principles of natural justice at a minimum level. Even this has not been done in this case. It is for this reason I am constrained to interfere. The order impugned in the writ petition is accordingly set aside. Aggrieved over the same, the official respondents have preferred the above writ appeals. 10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in WA. (MD)No.267 of 2023 would submit that temporary servant is also entitled to certain protection and his services cannot be terminated arbitrarily nor can those services be terminated in a punitive manner without complying with the principles of natural justice. The modus operandi involved Government Officials providing login ID and password to brokers who added new beneficiaries and got Rs.2,000/- per addition. The appellant being a Block Technology Manager appointed under the Agricultural Technology Management Agency (ATMA) Project and the duties and responsibilities of the appellant is no way connected with the implementation of PM-Kisan Scheme. There is no specific allegation against the appellant. Though FIR has been registered against several contractual staffs, neither in FIR nor in the Charge Sheet, the name of the appellant was included. There is no specific allegation against the appellant. Though FIR has been registered against several contractual staffs, neither in FIR nor in the Charge Sheet, the name of the appellant was included. However, to safeguard the higher officials who were involved in the scam, the appellant had been made as a scapegoat. Though the appointment of the appellant was made on contract basis through outsourcing, the same was extended by the official respondent periodically by verifying the performance appraisal report submitted by the fourth respondent to the third respondent and the service of the appellant has been extended time to time without giving any room for complaints. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the learned Writ Court for dismissing the writ petition is contrary to law and unjustified and therefore, the order has to be set aside. 11. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents in WA.(MD)No.267 of 2023 and appellants in other appeals would submit that the respondent/writ petitioner were engaged in the Departmental through outsourcing agency, namely M/s.Vison Consultancy on contract basis. The learned Writ Court failed to consider the seriousness and magnitude of the charges against the employees of M/s.Vison Consultancy and pendency of the criminal case against them. The firm who supplied employees alone entered into contract with the second appellant and there is no bondage with the writ petitioners. The Investigating Authority of CBCID lodged FIR against the employees supplied by M/s.Vison Consultancy for fraudulent activities in enrollment of beneficiaries in PM-Kisan scheme. The writ petitioners were not appointed through regular manner either through TNPSC or through Employment Exchange. The services under contract could simply be terminated if any breach of contract. The termination order was came to be passed by the competent authority in accordance with law and there is no illegality, procedural impropriety or irregularity. Once when a person engaged as casual worker on contract basis is well aware of the consequences of the appointment being contractual in nature, such a person has no legitimate right of being continued in service. Contract employment cannot be enforced under Article 226 of Constitution of India . Therefore, no Mandamus can be issued in cases of termination of service of an employee who appointed on the basis of the contract. 12. We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the records carefully. 13. Contract employment cannot be enforced under Article 226 of Constitution of India . Therefore, no Mandamus can be issued in cases of termination of service of an employee who appointed on the basis of the contract. 12. We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the records carefully. 13. According to the writ petitioner in WP.(MD)No.14175 of 2020, Centrally Sponsored Scheme namely "Support to State Extension Program for Extension Reforms Scheme (SSEPERS)- Agricultural Technology Management Agency (ATMA)” is being implemented to operate the Agricultural Extension Reforms across the country. This scheme is being implemented in 385 blocks of all 31 Districts of Tamil Nadu except Chennai, following the guidelines issued by the Government of India. In the guidelines, the State Government is permitted to engage the Block Technology Manager (BTM) and Assistant Technology Manager (ATM) on contract basis through the mechanism identified by the State with graduate in Agriculture/Allied Sector as educational qualification. The Government of India has released the required funds for implementation of the said Scheme in the ratio of 60:40 between the Central Government and the State Government. As per ATMA Guidelines, the posts of Block Technology Manager and the Assistant Technology Managers can be engaged at block level on contract basis to carry out the extension activities. As per the said scheme, the New Life Placements Private Limited appointed the petitioner as Block Technology Manager in Budalur Block, Thanjavur District. Initially, he was appointed as Assistant Technology Manager and it was in temporary basis. He was paid with monthly honorarium of Rs. 20,000/- and monthly allowance of Rs.5000/-. Periodically, his contract employment was extended by the New Life Placements Private Limited and the appellant is continuously working as Block Technology Manager at Agricultural Technology Management Agency (ATMA) Project in the office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Budalur Block, Thanjavur District. However, all of a sudden, without issuing any notice and conducting any enquiry, the service of the appellant was terminated by the second respondent. 14. According to the respondent/writ petitioner in WP.(MD)No. 13351 of 2020, he was appointed under the Scheme on 30.03.2012 by the District Collector, Trichy for the purpose of implementing ATMA scheme. The termination order came to be passed, pursuant to the communication received from the Directorate of Agriculture/first appellant. 14. According to the respondent/writ petitioner in WP.(MD)No. 13351 of 2020, he was appointed under the Scheme on 30.03.2012 by the District Collector, Trichy for the purpose of implementing ATMA scheme. The termination order came to be passed, pursuant to the communication received from the Directorate of Agriculture/first appellant. According to the respondent/writ petitioner, he is not responsible for updating or uploading the details of the beneficiary in the relevant web portal. Therefore, if any fraud has been committed, he is not responsible for the same. 15. According to the respondent/writ petitioner in WP.(MD)No. 13365 of 2020, he was appointed under the Scheme on 01.04.2012 by the District Collector, Trichy for the purpose of implementing ATMA scheme. The order of termination came to be passed by the District Collector, Trichy, in pursuant to the communication received from Directorate of Agriculture/first appellant. According to her, she is not responsible for updating or uploading the details of the beneficiary in the relevant web portal. Therefore, if any fraud has been committed, he is not responsible for the same. 16. According to the respondent/writ petitioner in WP.(MD)No. 13377 of 2020, he was appointed under the Scheme by the District Collector, Trichy for the purpose of implementing ATMA scheme. The order of termination came to be passed by the District Collector, Trichy, in pursuant to the communication received from Directorate of Agriculture/first appellant. According to him, he is not responsible for updating or uploading the details of the beneficiary in the relevant web portal. Therefore, if any fraud has been committed, he is not responsible for the same. 17. According to the respondent/writ petitioner in WP.(MD)No. 13372 of 2020, she was appointed under the Scheme by the District Collector, Trichy for the purpose of implementing ATMA scheme. The order of termination came to be passed by the District Collector, Trichy, in pursuant to the communication received from Directorate of Agriculture/first appellant. According to her, she is not responsible for updating or uploading the details of the beneficiary in the relevant web portal. Therefore, if any fraud has been committed, he is not responsible for the same. 18. It is seen from the records that there is guidelines to support to State Extension Programmes for Extension Reforms (ATMA) Scheme, 2018. According to her, she is not responsible for updating or uploading the details of the beneficiary in the relevant web portal. Therefore, if any fraud has been committed, he is not responsible for the same. 18. It is seen from the records that there is guidelines to support to State Extension Programmes for Extension Reforms (ATMA) Scheme, 2018. By following the said guidelines, the appellant in WA.(MD)No. 267 of 2023 was appointed as Block Technology Manager in Budalur Block, Thanjauvr District by New Life Placements Private Limited, by way of Work Assignment Letter dated 03.11.2015. In the said letter, there is specific mention that the appellant shall no point of time stake any claim or right to claim employment, damage loss or compensation of any sort whatsoever either against the said New Life Placements Pvt.Ltd., or their client, i.e. Agriculture Department. Annexure-II(b) of the said Scheme states about the duties/responsibilities of the specialists and functionaries wherein S.No.4 speaks about the nature of the post Block Technology Manager, ie., contractual. In pursuant to the guidelines issued by the Directorate of Extension, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, New Life Placements Pvt. Ltd., has assigned work assignment order to the appellant/writ petitioner. 19. A perusal of records shows that the appellant/writ petitioner was engaged through outsourcing Agency namely New Life Placements Private Limited on contractual basis alone. It is not in dispute that some contractual staffs have misused the Corona Relief Fund provided by the Government and illegally transferred the money to the ineligible persons and enrolled more number of ineligible beneficiaries in the portal by misusing the portal login credentials of the Department. Except the work assignment letter issued by the outsourcing agency, no other materials placed to show that the appellant/writ petitioner was recruited through employment exchange or through TNPSC. In such circumstances, the engagement of the appellant is only based on the scheme and no appointment order was issued to him by following the due recruitment process/procedures. In the work assignment order issued by the outsourcing agency, it has been specifically mentioned that appellant shall no point of time stake any claim or right to claim employment, damage loss or compensation of any sort whatsoever either against the said New Life Placements Pvt.Ltd., or their client, ie., Agriculture Department. In the work assignment order issued by the outsourcing agency, it has been specifically mentioned that appellant shall no point of time stake any claim or right to claim employment, damage loss or compensation of any sort whatsoever either against the said New Life Placements Pvt.Ltd., or their client, ie., Agriculture Department. In such circumstances, the District Collector being the the ex-officio chairman of ATMA Scheme in charge of implementation of ATMA Scheme, has issued the termination order, which is valid in law. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no reason warrants to interfere with the order of the learned Writ Court in WP.(MD)No.14175 of 2020, dated 23.01.2023. 20. It is seen from the records, in all other writ appeals, the respondents/writ petitioners were engaged as scheme employee. According to hem, they were not responsible for updating or uploading the details of the beneficiary in the relevant web portal. Therefore, if any fraud has been committed, they are not responsible for the same. It is not in dispute that the respondents/writ petitioners were engaged in the Department through outsourcing agency, namely M/s.Vison Consultancy on contract basis. It is also not in dispute that CBCID lodged FIR against the employees supplied by M/s.Vison Consultancy for fraudulent activities in enrollment of the beneficiaries of PM-Kishan Scheme. Admittedly, the writ petitioners were not appointed through regular manner, neither through TNPSC nor Employment Exchange. 21. It is seen from the records the outsourcing agency, namely M/s.Vison Consultancy, after issuing offer of appointment letter to the writ petitioners wherein it has been mentioned that consultancy period shall be for a period of 12 months beginning from 2012 to 2013, which can be extended further or terminated earlier with 7 days notice on either side, without assigning any reason. It is pertinent to mention that writ petitioner/M.Premsekar, initially appointed as Subject Matter Specialist in ATMA project(Agricultural Department) vide offer letter dated 30.03.2012. Subsequently, by another offer letter dated 01.08.2012, he was promoted as Block Technology Manager in ATMA project(Agricultural Department), through outsourcing agency, namely M/s.Vison Consultancy. 22. The writ petitioner Abiramy was issued with the list of ATMA selected candidates dated 31.03.2012. She was selected for the post of Block Technology Manager. Offer of appointment dated 31.05.2012 came to be issued to writ petitioner/Dinesh Kumar by the outsourcing agency, namely M/s.Vison Consultancy, as Subject Matter Specialist in ATMA Project (Agricultural Department). 22. The writ petitioner Abiramy was issued with the list of ATMA selected candidates dated 31.03.2012. She was selected for the post of Block Technology Manager. Offer of appointment dated 31.05.2012 came to be issued to writ petitioner/Dinesh Kumar by the outsourcing agency, namely M/s.Vison Consultancy, as Subject Matter Specialist in ATMA Project (Agricultural Department). The writ petitioner R.Asvini came to be appointed by the outsourcing agency namely, M/s.Vison Consultancy, by offer letter dated 08.02.2016 as Block Technology Manager in ATMA project(Agricultural Department). 23. Admittedly, the above said writ petitioners came to be engaged by the outsourcing agency. The services of the writ petitioners under contract could simply be terminated if any breach of contract. Consideirng the seriousness and magnitude of the charges against the employees of M/s.Vison Consultancy and pendency of the criminal case against them, the District Collector being ex-officio chairman of ATMA Scheme in charge of implementation of ATMA Scheme, has issued the termination order, which is valid in law. 24. It is to be noted that even in the appointment order of the respondents/writ petitioners itself, there is a conditional order, which expressively shows that the appointment is purely temporary appointment and service can be terminated at any point of time. The respondents/writ petitioners being contract employees, their service cannot be treated clearly on par with the regular Government Employees. Hence, there is no illegality in the termination order passed by the District Collector, based on the reports of the specially constituted teams and there is no illegality in the termination order. 25. The learned Writ Court ought not to have relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (Mohd. Abdul Kadir Vs. Director General of Police, Assam, (2009) 6 SCC 611 ). Since fraudulent and legal issues involved in the referred case and the issue involved in the present case are totally contradictory each other. The outsourcing agency namely M/s.Vison Consultancy is not a party in the writ petitions. The termination order came to be passed by the competent authority, in accordance with law and there is no illegality, perversity and irregularity. Since fraudulent and legal issues involved in the referred case and the issue involved in the present case are totally contradictory each other. The outsourcing agency namely M/s.Vison Consultancy is not a party in the writ petitions. The termination order came to be passed by the competent authority, in accordance with law and there is no illegality, perversity and irregularity. Once a person engaged as casual worker on contract basis is well aware of the consequences of the appointment being contractual in nature, such a person has no legitimate right of being continued in service, when there is a scam brought to the light and criminal cases have also been registered. 26. In such circumstances, the order of the writ Court in exceeding its jurisdiction and examination of validity of termination order passed by the competent authority and the same is entitled to be judicially reviewed only if there was any illegality or perversity. When the competent authority had issued termination letter in accordance with law without any procedural violation, the orders of the learned Writ Court are un-sustainable in law and intervention of this Court is necessary. Therefore, the orders of the learned Writ Court are liable to be set aside. 27. In the result, i) W.A.(MD)No.267 of 2023 is dismissed. ii) WA.(MD)Nos.1842 to 1845 of 2024 are allowed and the orders in WP.(MD)Nos.13351, 13365, 13377, 13372 of 2020 dated 21.03.2023 are hereby set aside. iii) WA.(MD)No.360 of 2026 is allowed and the order in WP.(MD)No.14357 of 2020 dated 08.03.2023 is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.