ORDER A.S. Anand, C.J. 1. The appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 7415 of 1982 decided on 2nd April, 1983, and 7493 of 1982 decided on 7th April, 1983. 2. The short facts which gave rise to the filing of the writ petitions were that six posts of graduate Headmasters had been allotted to Gudiyattam Panchayat Union for the acadamic year 1972-73 by the Chief Educational Officer, Vellore. Out of the six posts, four posts were utilised and the remaining two could not be utilised. Those two posts were surrendered to the Director of School Education. Consequent upon the surrender the posts were converted as Middle School. Headmasters Subsequently, it transpires that the appointing authority wrote to the first respondent seeking clarification whether the posts could be revised and filled up. After receiving the clarification, the appellants were appointed to the two posts. They were, however, later on reverted by order dated 14.7.1982. It was that reversion which was called in question in the writ petition on various grounds. 3. The learned single judge dismissed the writ petition, but in our opinion, the judgments under appeal cannot be sustained. 4. It is not disputed that the appellants had been appointed to the posts. The submission on behalf of the respondents, by the Government Pleader is that, since the District Educational Officer found that a mistake had been committed and that the appellants had been appointed to the posts which could not be revived and filled up, they were reverted. It is, however, not disputed that before reverting the appellants, they were not given any opportunity of being heard. Even if he assumed for the sake of argument that the posts had been filled up by the appellants due to some mistake, the fact that the appellants had been holding those posts for almost three years gave them a right to be heard before they were reverted. The principles of natural justice have been violated by not giving them any hearing. The writ petitions, therefore, should have been allowed on that short ground. In taking this view that even if a mistake is to be rectified, but the order resists the employee with civil consequences, he has a right to be heard, we are fortified by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Divisional Superintendent Eastern Railway Dinapur and Ors. The writ petitions, therefore, should have been allowed on that short ground. In taking this view that even if a mistake is to be rectified, but the order resists the employee with civil consequences, he has a right to be heard, we are fortified by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Divisional Superintendent Eastern Railway Dinapur and Ors. v. L.M. Kashri . The writ petitions therefore has to succeed and we consequently set aside the judgments of the learned Single Judge, and as a result the writ petitions would stand allowed. It is clarified that the success of these appeals or the writ petitions shall not stand in the way of the respondents to proceed, if so advised, against the appellants in accordance with law and following the principles of natural justice. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.