Since all these Writ Petitions raise common issues of fact and law, they are being heard and disposed of together.

2. In pursuance of a scheme framed by it for successful implementation of Polam Badi (Farmer's Field School), the Government of A.P. envisaged appointment of model farmers styled as "Adarsha Rythus". The Government issued G.O.Rt.No.284, Agriculture and Co-operation (F.P.II) Department, dated 14-03-2007, fixing the eligibility criteria, selection procedure and guidelines etc., for appointment of the model farmers. By another GO viz., G.O.Rt.No.500, Agriculture and Cooperation (F.P .II) Department, dated 29-04-2008, the duties and responsibilities of these model farmers have been prescribed. By yet another GO i.e., G.O.Rt.No.818, Agriculture and Cooperation (F.P .II) Department, dated 30-06-2008, the age limit of model farmers was altered.

3. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners herein were subjected to the selection process in terms of the abovementioned Gas and were accordingly selected as Adarsha Rythus by the District Collectors concerned. It is also not in dispute that in pursuance of the selections made, the petitioners were imparted training and issued identity cards. As per the conditions laid down in the extant Gas, the petitioners are being paid Rs.1,000/- per month as "honorarium'. However, by the impugned memos, the petitioners' services have been terminated on the ground that their performance is rated as poor. It is these memos, which are challenged in these Writ Petitions.

4. Detailed counter-affidavits have been filed in W.P.Nos.21868, 22006, 23271 and 25415 of 2009.

5. At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture representing the respondents submitted that the facts in all these Writ Petitions are more or less identical and therefore, the same counter-affidavits may be treated as common counter-affidavits in all the other Writ Petitions as well.

6. The sum and substance of these counter-affidavits is that the reason for terminating the petitioners' appointments as Adarsha Rythus is that, on evaluation of their performance, it was found that they were graded as poor by the Mandal Agricultural Officers concerned.

7. At the hearing, Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao and Sri S.V.Ramana, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in some of these Writ Petitions, contended that the impugned memos cannot be sustained because they are in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned Counsel have reinforced the pleas raised by the petitioners in these Writ Petitions that at no point of time, they were informed about their so-called poor performance and that no opportunity was afforded to them to explain the alleged poor performance on their part. The impugned action of the respondents, contend the learned Counsel, is therefore liable to be declared as arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

8. Opposing the above contentions, the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture, submitted that as the petitioners' selection and their continuance as Adarsha Rythus was in pursuance of an executive action under a scheme framed by the State Government, which does not have any statutory force, their termination is not amenable for the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has however conceded that the impugned memos are not preceded by a prior notice, while contending that such prior notices are not required to be given to the petitioners as they do not have any vested right to continue as Adarsha Rythus.

9. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties.

10. While it is true that the scheme, under which the petitioners have been selected and appointed, do not have statutory force, it requires to be noted at the same time that the scheme evolved by the State was intended to serve a public purpose viz., to create awareness in the farmers in order to boost the agricultural activ