Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner by way of filing the present petition before this Court has prayed for quashing the order which is Annexure P-16 to the petition. The petitioner also claims that he should be continued in service and he be also given the consequential benefits. ( 2. ) THE facts which are necessary for the decision of the case are that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 5-5-1995 (which is Annexure P-l to the petition) for a period of one year in the pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900 with a direction to join his post by 15th of May, 1995. The order further states that the appointment of the petitioner is temporary and can be terminated without any reason or notice. By another order dated 7-7-1995 (which is Annexure P-2 to the petition), the petitioner was posted at Block Prithvipur, District Tikamgarh. The petitioner was not permitted to join his duties by the Project Incharge vide order dated 22-5-1995. The Deputy Director, Education and Project, vide letter 24-5-1995 (which is Annexure P-4 to the petition) informed that since the circumstances are not in favour of the petitioner, therefore, his posting be done in another district. On this, a dispute arose about the non-joining of the petitioner at Prithvipur in spite of there being a letter of appointment. The aforesaid order of appointment though was for a one year. The period according to the petitioner was extended by order dated 28-6-1996 (which is Annexure p-13 to the petition ). Subsequently, the said period was extended vide order dated 8-9-1997 for a period of one year. In the petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashment of the order dated 26-11-1997 which is Annexure P-16. This is not an order but is a show-cause notice which has been issued to the petitioner giving him opportunity to submit his explanation. In the said notice, various instances have been quoted about the negligence and careless performance of the petitioner. After the said show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted his reply and the reply has been filed by the petitioner which is Annexure P-l7 to the petition. Thereafter, the respondents passed an order on 17-3-1998 which is annexure P-18 to the petition. In the said notice, various instances have been quoted about the negligence and careless performance of the petitioner. After the said show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted his reply and the reply has been filed by the petitioner which is Annexure P-l7 to the petition. Thereafter, the respondents passed an order on 17-3-1998 which is annexure P-18 to the petition. In the said order, the services in the petition were said to have been discontinued as the services are no longer required with immediate effect and therefore the services of the petitioner were terminated. The petitioner seems to have been aggrieved by the order. However, the petitioner has not challenged the said order. ( 3. ) THIS court will not adopt too technical approach while exercising the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore this Court will proceed to adjudicate upon the present petition treating that order dated 17-3-1998 Annexure P-18 under challenged. The order dated 17-3-1998 Annexure P-18 speaks of various conduct of the petitioner and it further states that the services of the petitioner are no longer required in view of the provisions of M. P. Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1965. For the reference, the said order is produced as under:- ( 4. ) ON the face of the said order, it is clear that the said order casts stigma on the petitioner and therefore the said order has to be set aside. When the petitioner submitted reply to the show-cause notice dated 26-11-1997 (Annexure P-16) then it was necessary for the respondents to conduct a departmental enquiry by giving an opportunity to the petitioner. In the instant case, it is not seen from the record that after submitting reply to the show-cause notice by the petitioner, any further opportunity was ever given to the petitioner. The contents of the order speaks of the stigma against him and therefore the order as such cannot be upheld. ( 5. ) MR. Amit Garg, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 laboured much on by citing a judgment reported in (2002) 10 SCC 394, and submitted that in the said judgment the Apex Court has not found the order of termination to be stigmatic, but the said judgment may not be applicable in the present case because the Apex Court recorded a finding that the order of termination is not stigmatic. ( 6. ( 6. ) UNDER the similar circumstances, this Court in 2001 (3) M. P. H. T. 397 = W. P. No. 496/99, decided on 15-2-2001 (Rahul Tripathi Vs. Rajeev gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bhopal and others), copy of which has been placed on record, has held that the order casts stigma on the petitioner and therefore various instances have been enumerated in the order. In the present case, the termination order as quoted above, itself shows the stigma, on the petitioner. I am inclined to agree with the view taken by this Court and therefore the order of termination dated 17-3-1998 (Annexure P-16) is set aside. ( 7. ) THE next question arose about the relief as to what relief the petitioner can be given. Admittedly, in the instant case, the last extension of the petitioners service was w. e. f. 8-9-1997 which was for a period of one year only. Thereafter, there had been no extension. The Counsel for the respondents states that the order dated 8-9-1997 (Annexure P-14) is not an order which has been issued by the Additional Project Director, wherein it was stated that the petitioner has -applied for his extension of contract appointment. The additional Project Director has directed the District Project Coordinator that the decision in relation to the extension of the contract appointment of the petitioner has to be taken at the district level. Whatever the position may be, but the petitioner continued in service. When order of appointment was issued on 28-6-1996 (which is Annexure P-13 to the petition), though there had been no order subsequently in favour of the petitioner granting him any extension. The petitioner continued in the employment till the date of termination dated 17-3-1998 (Annexure P-18 to the petition), i. e. , the order by which the services of the petitioner were dispensed with. ( 8. ) MR. Amit Garg, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the matter of contract appointment is governed by the general service condition applicable to the contractual employees of the Rajiv Gandhi prathmik Shiksha Mission. According to him, the tenure of appointment of persons appointed on contract basis is for a period of one year in first year and then in second year subject to evaluation of work performed in the first year. Tne aforesaid Rules does not prescribed for the appointment on permanent basis. According to him, the tenure of appointment of persons appointed on contract basis is for a period of one year in first year and then in second year subject to evaluation of work performed in the first year. Tne aforesaid Rules does not prescribed for the appointment on permanent basis. The reading of the Rules itself indicated that persons working on contract basis can be terminated by giving him one month notice if found inefficient. It further prescribed that in case persons found indulged in undesirable activities amounting to degradation of dignity of Mission, Mission Director shall reserve right to terminate him with immediate effect. ( 9. ) THE aforesaid Rules further prescribed the appointing authorities. According to the same, Mission Director and Project Director will be from IAS Cadre and will be appointed by the State Government. Additional project Director will be a Senior Officer of State Government in the pay scale of rs. 4500-7000. The Appointing Authority will be State Government. In the instant case, termination of persons working on contract by giving one months notice or the persons found indulged in undesirable activities amounting to degradation of dignity of Mission, Mission Director shall reserve right to terminate him with immediate effect. ( 10. ) THUS, according to the Scheme of the Rules applicable to the Rajiv gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission which has been filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as Annexure R-l to their Return itself indicate that the Mission Director will have power to terminate a person appointed on contract basis if he found an employee indulging in undesirable activities amounting to degradation of dignity of Mission. The reasons which are stated in the order of termination annexure P-18 shows that the petitioner was found indulged in undesirable activities amounting to degradation of dignity of Mission and therefore in the instant case the Mission Director will be the authority who can terminate the services of such employees. ( 11. ) IN the instant case, the order of termination dated 17-3-1998 (Annexure P-18) has been passed by the Deputy Director, Education who is additional Project Director. There is no delegation of powers under the scheme as contained in the Annexure R-l to the Return by which the Mission director is permitted to delegate his powers to any other person. ) IN the instant case, the order of termination dated 17-3-1998 (Annexure P-18) has been passed by the Deputy Director, Education who is additional Project Director. There is no delegation of powers under the scheme as contained in the Annexure R-l to the Return by which the Mission director is permitted to delegate his powers to any other person. The right to terminate an employee appointed on contract basis and found indulged in undesirable activities is given to the Mission Director and not to any other persons. In view of this, the termination as such is without there being any valid authority. ( 12. ) THE Scheme further stipulates that the continuation of an employee depend upon evaluation of work in the previous years. Since the order of termination Annexure P-18 has been found to be stigmatic and has been set aside. ( 13. ) AFTER when the termination is set aside as above the question arises about the grant of relief of reinstatement. In the earlier case, as referred herein above, i. e. , W. P. No. 496/99, decided on 15-2-2001 though I have agreed with the ratio of the case in relation to the stigmatic order only but in the said case there had been no argument advanced about the aspect as to whether the relief of reinstatement could be granted to an employee employed on contract basis and whose termination is set aside I distinguish the said case in so far as relief of reinstatement is concerned. The Apex Court in 1969 (3) SLR Page 470 (Prabhat kumar Mukherjee Vs. State of Bihar and others), has held that the reinstatement on setting aside the termination of a contract employee cannot be granted as the relief of reinstatement in such case is not available. In view of the said judgment this Court cannot direct for the reinstatement. However, the employee as such would be entitled for salary for the remaining period of the contract. As I have already held earlier that the services of the petitioner were terminated prior to the expiry of the contract period and therefore, he would be entitled for the full salary for the remaining period of the contract. However, the employee as such would be entitled for salary for the remaining period of the contract. As I have already held earlier that the services of the petitioner were terminated prior to the expiry of the contract period and therefore, he would be entitled for the full salary for the remaining period of the contract. However, reinstatement and continuation of the petitioners appointment will be decided by the Competent authority keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case within two months from the date of certified copy of the order is produced to him. Thus, consequently, this petition is partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. No order as to costs. Writ Petition partly allowed.