JUDGMENT By this petition, the three petitioners have challenged the notices Annexures - P-6, P-7 and P-8 by which their services have been terminated, as no longer required, on payment of a month's salary. Nalanda Public Higher Secondary School (Respondent No.1) is an institution run and managed by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is not disputed that it is a recognised school and is governed by the provisions of the M.P. Ashaskiya School Viniyaman Adhiniyam, 1975. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 10.7.1986 in the Primary Section of the institution while the petitioner No.2 and 3 were appointed in the Primary School on 16.1.1993. In the letters of termination, no reason was assigned therefore. Respondents and 2 have filed their Return in which the Respondents have pointed out that Rajdhani Shiksha Samiti is the society that runs the Nalanda Public School and since the society has not been impleaded, the petition merits dismissal on that ground. It has further been pointed out that the petitioners failed to complete training as per Government Rules despite repeated written instructions/warnings and left no option with the management except to terminate their services. It has further been stated in the Return that there were serious complaints against the petitioners No.2 & 3 and since the petitioners were not found suitable due to lack of educational qualifications laid down by School Education Department, the Respondents were constrained to sack the petitioners. It has also been stated that termination was on account of their poor performance and indiscipline. Notice sent to them have been filed marked collectively as Annexure-R/1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the decision of this Court in Neeti Shan v. Miss Hill Education Society, Lashkar and others [1991 (1) MPLJ 23] in support of her contention that even teachers appointed in unaided recognised schools are entitled to statutory protection in regard to security of tenure and such teachers cannot arbitrarily be subjected to rule of "hire and fire". Learned counsel has further submitted that since there is no dispute that the school is a recognised school and is governed by the provisions of M.P. Ashaskiya School Viniyaman Adhiniyam, 1975 and the impugned orders have been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing or show cause to the petitioners, the notices deserve to be quashed. Learned counsel has further submitted that since there is no dispute that the school is a recognised school and is governed by the provisions of M.P. Ashaskiya School Viniyaman Adhiniyam, 1975 and the impugned orders have been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing or show cause to the petitioners, the notices deserve to be quashed. Attention has also been invited to the decision in Umesh Kumar Trivedi v. State Committee, Rajiv Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission and others [ 2002 (2) MPLJ 391 ] in support of the contention that even contract employees cannot be terminated for inefficiency without a due notice. Learned counsel for the Respondents has though stated that notices had been issued, he has not been able to point out the provision under which it was necessary for the teachers to acquire the teachers training certificates. Even the termination notices Annexure-P/6, P/7 and P/8 do not speak of this ground as reason for termination but state that the services were no longer required. Though it is alleged in the Return that the termination was also for the poor performance and indiscipline of the petitioners, this ground also does not find mention in the order of termination. As observed in Neeti Bhan (supra), once an appointment is made and there is nothing to indicate that the appointment is contrary to any statutory provision, the appointee teacher becomes entitled to have a statutory protection in regard to the security of tenure as envisaged under the .Act of 1975 and such a teacher cannot be dealt with in an arbitrary manner adopting the rule of "hire and fire". Since on the admitted facts no enquiry has been held into the conduct of the petitioners and it is an admitted position that order has been passed on the allegation of indiscipline, the matter can be considered in the Writ. Petition and the order Annexure-P/6, P/7 and P/8 can be quashed. However, as there is no material on record to show that the petitioners have remained unemployed after termination of their services, arrears of salary cannot be awarded to them. In the result, this petition partly succeeds. The order Annexure-P/6, P/7 and P/8 are quashed. Respondent No.1 and 2 are directed to reinstate the petitioners in service. The Respondents shall, however, be free to take action against the petitioners in accordance with law.