JUDGMENT : (G. Narendar, J.) : Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. The present Writ Appeal is filed, aggrieved by the order, dated 29.04.2024, rendered in W.P. No.9761 of 2024, whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the Writ Petition. 3. The parties herein are referred to by their nomenclature before the learned Single Judge. 4. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the Writ Petition is itself maintainable? Secondly, whether any prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by the act of the Mandal Mahila Samaikya, in surrendering the services of the petitioners to the appointing authority namely, the Zilla Samaikya, thereby enabling the petitioners to maintain the relief of Mandamus or Direction? 5. The case of the writ petitioners is that they are the Mandal Mahila Samaikya Cluster Coordinators, who have been appointed for a limited time according to the Zilla Samaikya bylaws and deputed to the Mandal Mahila Samaikya and as per the terms of the temporary appointment orders, they are required to discharge the duties as assigned to them in the form of the job chart and also discharge such duties as may be assigned by the Zilla Samaikya and Mandal Mahila Samaikya. 6. It is the case of the appellant/4th respondent that the writ petitioners, who are all Mandal Mahila Samaikya Cluster Coordinators had indulged in unruly behavior, which shows that they are using abusive language and have been consistently engaging in arguments and thereby harming the execution of the projects entrusted to them. In these circumstances, the appellant/4th respondent, who is the President of the Mandal Mahila Samaikya, has deemed it fit to surrender their services back to the 6th respondent i.e., Zilla Samaikya. 7. It is case of the writ petitioners that the Mandal Mahila Samaikya has no right to release them and surrender their services as Mandal Mahila Samaikya is neither the appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority. In this regard, the learned Counsel would place before this Court the terms and conditions of appointment, which reads as under: 1. Under normal circumstances Mandal Samakhya Cluster Coordinator (MSCC) should perform the duties assigned in the form of job chart. However, without prejudice to the regular responsibilities in the job chart and the rules and conditions contained herein, the Zilla Samakhya/Mandal Samakhya also assign other responsibilities as required. Under normal circumstances Mandal Samakhya Cluster Coordinator (MSCC) should perform the duties assigned in the form of job chart. However, without prejudice to the regular responsibilities in the job chart and the rules and conditions contained herein, the Zilla Samakhya/Mandal Samakhya also assign other responsibilities as required. He/she will be on employment for 5 years, extendable by 5 years. The period of employment can be extended up to 58 years to the person if he has worked satisfactorily to the Zilla Samakhya/Mandal Samakhya. 12. District Union may cancel appointment in case of misconduct or corrupt behaviour or non-performance of assigned duties. 18. In relation to the above mentioned conditions and regulations in relation to the appointment, it will be a breach if not individually but as a team, in such cases the district federation has the right to cancel the appointment and dismiss him or her from the job.” 8. We have read the order impugned in the Writ Petition. The order alleged to have terminated their services reads as under: “Devipatnam mandal differences and clashes have been arose with in the premises of the respective cluster. Those fights have been taking place, they know that since these 3 months. The said people who are with out giving proper respect to the authorities behaving in indecent manner. They are conspiring and scolding in indecent manner. Not only verbal illegal words but also threatening me with dire consequences. Therefore all the four CC have been surrendered to the TPMU. Kindly consider my request.” 9. On a reading of the same, it is apparent that the same has not resulted in the termination of the services and their services have been surrendered to the appointing authority and there being no dispute with regard to the same, the question that arises is whether the proceedings entitle the petitioners to invoke the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 10. That apart, as observed earlier, the impugned proceedings do not result in the termination of the services thereby resulting in any civil consequences, and it is for the petitioners to demonstrate as to how the writ petitions are maintainable. 11. 10. That apart, as observed earlier, the impugned proceedings do not result in the termination of the services thereby resulting in any civil consequences, and it is for the petitioners to demonstrate as to how the writ petitions are maintainable. 11. Apparently, the contract of employment is governed by the Zilla Samaikya Mandal Mahila Samaikya Cluster Coordinators Employment Contract Regulations, 2012 and their appointing authority being the Collector i.e. the 2nd respondent, in the event, the petitioners were aggrieved by the same, they could have represented the 2nd respondent to address the situation and the proceedings to surrender their services back to the Zilla Samaikya on account of certain alleged behavior. 12. In our considered opinion, the same cannot be a cause of action to invoke the provisions of Article 226 and in that view, maintaining a Writ Petition, more so, in view of the fact that the petitioners are unable to canvass a case of demonstrable prejudice or any dire civil consequences. In our considered opinion, the writ petition is not maintainable as no right of the petitioner is violated. 13. A useful reference could be made to the law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court with regard to issuance of Mandamus or Direction. In the case of Food Corporation of India and Others vs. Ashis Kumar Ganguly and Others, (2009) 7 SCC 734 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in paragraph Nos.25 and 26 as under : "25. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that a writ of or in the nature of mandamus can be issued only when existence of a legal right in the writ petitioner and a corresponding legal duty in the respondent are established. Where the administrative authority is conferred with a discretionary jurisdiction, the High Court, it was urged, ordinarily would not issue a writ of mandamus. 26. Our attention in this behalf has been drawn to a judgment of this court in state of M.P. v. G.C. Mandawar wherein this court in the context of exercise of discretionary power in the matter of grant of dearness allowances at a particular rate under Rule 44 of the Fundamental Rules, opined: (AIR p. 495, para) "5. …Under this provision, it is a matter of discretion with the local Government whether it will grant dearness allowances and if so, how much. …Under this provision, it is a matter of discretion with the local Government whether it will grant dearness allowances and if so, how much. That being so, the prayer for 'mandamus' is clearly misconceived, as that could be granted only when there is in the applicant a right to compel the performance of some duty cast on the opponent. Rule 44 of the Fundamental Rules confers no right on the government servants to the grant of dearness allowances; it imposes no duty on the state to grant it. It merely confers a power on the state to grant compassionate allowance as its own discretion, and no 'mandamus' can issue to compel the exercise of such a power. Nor, indeed, could any other writ or direction be issued in respect of it, as there is no, right in the applicant which is capable of being protected or enforced." 14. In the case of Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 9 SCC 356 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in paragraph Nos. 100 to 103 as under : 100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but are duty-bound to exercise such power, where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised discretion conferred upon it by a statute, or a rule, or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide, or on irrelevant consideration. 101. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority. 102. In appropriate cases, in order to prevent injustice to the parties, the Court may itself pass an order or give directions which the Government or the public authorities should have passed, had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion. In Director of Settlements, A.P. v. M.R.Apparao [Director of Settlements, A.P. v. M.R. Apparao, (2002) 4 SCC 638]. Pattanaik, J. observed: (SCC p. 659, para 17) “17. In Director of Settlements, A.P. v. M.R.Apparao [Director of Settlements, A.P. v. M.R. Apparao, (2002) 4 SCC 638]. Pattanaik, J. observed: (SCC p. 659, para 17) “17. … One of the conditions for exercising power under Article 226 for issuance of a mandamus is that the court must come to the conclusion that the aggrieved person has a legal right, which entitles him to any of the rights and that such right has been infringed. In other words, existence of a legal right of a citizen and performance of any corresponding legal duty by the State or any public authority, could be enforced by issuance of a writ of mandamus, “mandamus” means a command. It differs from the writs of prohibition or certiorari in its demand for some activity on the part of the body or person to whom it is addressed. Mandamus is a command issued to direct any person, corporation, inferior courts or Government, requiring him or them to do some particular thing therein specified which appertains to his or their office and is in the nature of a public duty. A mandamus is available against any public authority including administrative and local bodies, and it would lie to any person who is under a duty imposed by a statute or by the common law to do a particular act. In order to obtain a writ or order in the nature of mandamus, the applicant has to satisfy that he has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and such right must be subsisting on the date of the petition (see Kalyan Singh v. State of U.P. [Kalyan Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1962 SC 1183 ] ). The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution, a statute, common law or by rules or orders having the force of law.” (emphasis in original) 103. The Court is duty-bound to issue a writ of mandamus for enforcement of a public duty. There can be no doubt that an important requisite for issue of mandamus is that mandamus lies to enforce a legal duty. This duty must be shown to exist towards the applicant. A statutory duty must exist before it can be enforced through mandamus. The Court is duty-bound to issue a writ of mandamus for enforcement of a public duty. There can be no doubt that an important requisite for issue of mandamus is that mandamus lies to enforce a legal duty. This duty must be shown to exist towards the applicant. A statutory duty must exist before it can be enforced through mandamus. Unless a statutory duty or right can be read in the provision, mandamus cannot be issued to enforce the same. 15. In the case of Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Coop. Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 145 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in paragraph No.15 as under: 15. Re: Contention 3: This contention is also well founded and must prevail. There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. (See Lekhraj Satramdas Lalvani v. Deputy Custodian-cum-Managing Officer [ AIR 1966 SC 334 , Rai Shivendra Bahadur Dr v. Governing Body of the Nalanda College [ AIR 1962 SC 1210 and Umakant Saran Dr v. State of Bihar [ (1973) 1 SCC 485 . In the instant case, it has not been shown by Respondent 1 that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on Respondents 2 to 4 which they failed to perform. All that is sought to be enforced is an obligation flowing from a contract which, as already indicated, is also not binding and enforceable. Accordingly, we are clearly of the opinion that Respondent 1 was not entitled to apply for grant of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution and the High Court was not competent to issue the same. 16. Accordingly, we are clearly of the opinion that Respondent 1 was not entitled to apply for grant of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution and the High Court was not competent to issue the same. 16. In the Case of State of Kerala v. Kandath Distilleries, (2013) 6 SCC 573 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph Nos. 30 and 37 as under: Re-Mandamus-To issue licence 30. The legislature when confers a discretionary power on an authority, it has to be exercised by it in its discretion, the decision ought to be that of the authority concerned and not that of the court. The court would not interfere with or probe into the merits of the decision made by an authority in exercise of its discretion. The court cannot impede the exercise of discretion of an authority acting under the statute by issuance of a writ of mandamus. A writ of mandamus can be issued in favour of an applicant who establishes a legal right in himself and is issued against an authority which has a legal duty to perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so, but such a legal duty should emanate either in discharge of the public duty or operation of law. We have found that there is no legal duty cast on the Commissioner or the State Government exercising powers under Section 14 of the Act read with Rule 4 of the 1975 Rules to grant the licence applied for. The High Court, in our view, cannot direct the State Government to part with its exclusive privilege. At best, it can direct consideration of an application for licence. If the High Court feels, in spite of its direction, the application has not been properly considered or arbitrarily rejected, the High Court is not powerless to deal with such a situation that does not mean that the High Court can bend or break the law. Granting liquor licence is not like granting licence to drive a cab or parking a vehicle or issuing a municipal licence to set up a grocery or a fruit shop. Before issuing a writ of mandamus, the High Court should have, at the back of its mind, the legislative scheme, its object and purpose, the subject-matter, the evil sought to be remedied, the State's exclusive privilege, etc. Before issuing a writ of mandamus, the High Court should have, at the back of its mind, the legislative scheme, its object and purpose, the subject-matter, the evil sought to be remedied, the State's exclusive privilege, etc. and not to be carried away by the idiosyncrasies or the ipse dixit of an officer who authored the order challenged. Majesty of law is to be upheld not by bending or breaking the law but by strengthening the law. 37. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have overlooked those vital factors while issuing a writ of mandamus directing the State Government/Commissioner to grant distillery licence to the respondent for setting up of a new distillery in Palakkad District, thinking that the impugned order is nothing but old wine in new bottle. We are informed, after 1998, not even a single licence has been granted by the State Government/Commissioner for establishing distillery units anywhere in the State. That being the factual and legal position, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court were not justified in issuing a writ of mandamus directing the issuance of a distillery licence to the respondent. 17. In the case of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams v. K.Jotheeswara Pillai, (2007) 9 SCC 461 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 as under: 9. The learned Single Judge has also issued a writ of mandamus directing the appellant to consider the case of Writ Petitioner 5 as to whether he was entitled for exemption from age qualification. As already mentioned the Rules do not make any provision for granting exemption except to the limited extent as provided in the second para of Rule 11. The principles, on which a writ of mandamus can be issued, are well settled and we will refer to only one decision rendered in Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Coop. Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [ (1977) 4 SCC 145 where this Court observed as under: “[A] writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [ (1977) 4 SCC 145 where this Court observed as under: “[A] writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance.” 10. There being no statutory provision or rule providing for exemption from eligibility criterion, the learned Single Judge clearly erred in issuing a writ of mandamus against the appellant directing it to consider the case of Writ Petitioner 5 for granting him exemption from the rule providing for upper age-limit for fresh appointment. 18. In the light of the above observations, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. It is open to the petitioners to seek remedy in terms of the Zilla Samaikya and Mandal Mahila Samaikya Cluster Coordinators Employment Contract Regulations, 2012. 19. The Writ Appeal stands ordered accordingly. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.