Judgment Prabha Shankar Mishra, J. 1. The petitioners in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Cases Nos. 3342 of 1978, and 5349 of 1978, have impugned the order of the District Superintendent of Education, Vaishali, as contained in Memo No. 6828-31, Hajipur, dated the 24th June, 1978, and, as the acts of the two cases are similar, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The petitioners were appointed as Primary School Teachers by the order of District Superintendent of Education, Vaishali vide Memo No. 965-68, dated the 24th June 1978, their appointments were cancelled. The petitioners have moved this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the said order of cancellation of their appointments. 3. It has been alleged by both the petitioners that they applied for their respective appointments in response to the advertisements made in this behalf, were interviewed along with other candidates by the District Superintendent of education, Vaishali, their names were included in the panel from which appointments were to be made, and, on being selected they were put in the appropriate scale of pay as Trained-Matriculate Teachers. After their appointments, they assumed their respective posts and were paid their emoluments for about two months and the order of cancellation of their appointments came as a bolt from the blue, as no notice whatsoever was ever served upon them and no opportunity was ever afforded to them to show cause as to why their appointments be not cancelled. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners in both the cases have raised common contentions. According to them, the ground for the cancellation of the appointments, as stated m the impugned order, is non est, in as much as it is not correct to say that the petitioner did not participate in the interview and their names were not included in the panel from which appointment were to be made. They have also contended that the impugned action bring penal nature as the impugned order is not one of a termination simpliciter? but of cancellation of the appointments themselves, the petitioners were entitled to a notice and opportunity of hearing before the impugned order was made. 5. They have also contended that the impugned action bring penal nature as the impugned order is not one of a termination simpliciter? but of cancellation of the appointments themselves, the petitioners were entitled to a notice and opportunity of hearing before the impugned order was made. 5. There is no counter-affidavit by any of the respondents The allegations made by the petitioners, that they applied in response to the advertisement made participated in the interview and their names were included in the panel from which they were appointed, therefore, are unre-butted. I do not, however, propose to accept this unrebutted statement of facts as conclusive, because that shall cause serious embarassment to the respondents, if they do have some materials to controvert these allegations, but have failed to bring them on the record before this Court. 6. The second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners however, has to succeed. This Court, in different cases, more than once has held that in a case of cancellation of appointment common law principles of natural justice are attracted, even if there are no statutory provisions A distinction has been maintained between an order of cancellation of the appointment and the order of termination of the appointment simpliciter Cases of cancellation of appointment have been equated with penal actions as there are obvious civil consequences involved in such cases. 7. The petitioners have alleged that they were not afforded any opportunity of hearing and that at no time any notice was given to them to show cause and/or to explain their position and satisfy the appropriate authority that they had participated in the interview and their names were included in the panel prepared after the interview. The principle of natural justice that a person must be afforded reasonable opportunity to place his case before he is made to suffer a civil consequence has been violated in this case These two writ applications have, therefore, to succeed. 8. These two applications are accordingly allowed, and the order of the District Superintendent of Education, Vaishali, as contained in Annexure 5 to Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3342 of 1978, and in Annexure 3 to Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5349 of 1978, that is to say, Memo No. 6828-31 dated the 24th June, 1978, is hereby quashed. Let a writ in the nature of certiorari accordingly issue. Let a writ in the nature of certiorari accordingly issue. As a result of the quashing of the impugned order, the petitioners shall be deemed to have continued in service. It shall however, remain open to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law, it they will so think that any action had be taken for the cancellation of the appointments of the petitioners. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.