This writ application has been filed challenging the legality and validity of the order at Annexure E by which the appointment order of the petitioner as Gaonburah of village Pithakhowa was revised and cancelled and in his place, respondent No.3 Shri Bipul Saikia was appointed. That order of appointment is quoted below: "Office Order Seen public petition dated 31.5.94 complaining against appointment of Shri Rasmi Kanta Kalita as Gaonburah of Village Pithakhowa of Mouza Hindughopa. Seen instruction dated 3.6.94 of the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang. As per instruction of the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, the appointment order of Shri Rasmi Kanta Kalita as Gaonburah of Village Pithakhowa vide this office Memo No.DRKG.2/12/91-92/50 dated 10.5.94 is revised and cancelled and in his place Sri Bipul Saikia, son of late Kala Ram Bania of village Pithakhowa is appointed Gaonburah of village Pithakhowa within mouza Hindughopa of Sipajhar Circle. This order will give effect from the date of joining Shri Bipul Saikia as Gaonburahr" 2. In 1991 the Gaonburah of village Pithakhowa died. The son of late Gaonburah applied for the post, even though there was no advertisement. Thereafter, on 23.3.92 there was an advertisement to fill up the post of Gaonburah and the petitioner applied for the post of Gaonburah by filing an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang. On 5.6.92 an interview was held. Both the petitioner and the son of late Gaonburah Shri Bipul Saikia, respondent No.3 were called for interview. The Interview Board unanimously selected the petitioner for being appointed as Gaonburah. Thereafter on 10.5.94 the letter of appointment was issued as Gaonburah to the petitioner. The petitioner joined the post by filing joining report. Thereafter on 8.7.94 the impugned order was issued by the Deputy Commissioner whereby his appointment was cancelled. The Villagers of Pithakhowa village filed a representation against the cancellation order of the petitioner, but that was not accepted. Hence this writ application. 3. I have heard Shri AK Bora, learned Advocate for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed. Shri Bora contends that the petitioner holds a civil post and if his appointment is to be \ cancelled the authority is duty bound to make an enquiry and should give an opportunity to present his case. 3. I have heard Shri AK Bora, learned Advocate for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed. Shri Bora contends that the petitioner holds a civil post and if his appointment is to be \ cancelled the authority is duty bound to make an enquiry and should give an opportunity to present his case. The order of cancellation it is submitted is against the principle of natural justice inasmuch as the order was passed behind the back of the petitioner and no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to be heard. Shri Bora in support of his contention relies on 2 decisions; (1) 1994 (2) GLJ 329 (Sri Ojom Libang vs. The State of Arunachal Pradesh & others) wherein this Court held that as the petitioner holds a civil post he could not be removed without affording an opportunity and this Court further pointed out that by cancelling the appointment of one Gaonburah and appointing another Gaonburah is violative of natural justice. The next case relied by Shri Bora is AIR 1994 SC 753 (Inderaj vs. Financial Commissioner & others) wherein the Supreme Court was considering the case of the appointment of a Headman and it was pointed out that such a person cannot be thrown out without affording to the minimum requirement of natural justice, that is, what has happend in the instant case. Accordingly this writ application is allowed. The impugned order shall stand quashed and as the petitioner was earlier appointed he shall be allowed to continue as Gaonburah of Pithakhowa village.