Judgment D.G. Karnik, J. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mr. B.V. Wagh, waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3. By consent taken up for hearing. 3. The petitioner no.3 is a higher secondary school and receives grant in aid. The petitioner nos.1 and 2 were employed as assistant teachers in the petitioner no.1 School. Their appointment was initially approved by the respondent no.2 i.e. Deputy Director of Education. On a complaint made by Dr. Shankar Ambhore and Shri S.D. Bramharakshas, the respondent no.2, by his order dated 17th December 2009, revoked the approval granted for appointment of the petitioner nos.1 and 2. That order is impugned in the present petition. 4. It is the grievance of the petitioners that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners before cancellation of the approval granted to the petitioner nos.1 and 2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents does not dispute that hearing was not given but submits that it was unnecessary as the order was not a final order and inquiry was to be conducted. 5. The effect of cancellation of the approval has a civil consequences, inasmuch as, the petitioner no.3 would not get grant in aid for salary of the petitioner nos.1 and 2. Consequently, the petitioner nos.1 and 2 would not receive the salary. As the impugned order has a civil consequence, which affects civil rights of the petitioner nos.1 and 2, they ought to have been given hearing before passing the order of cancellation of approval to their appointments. It does not lie in the mouth of the respondent no.2 that the order of cancellation of approval was not final and, therefore, hearing was not necessary. As the order affects rights of the petitioners, principles of natural justice ought to have been followed and the petitioners ought to have been given opportunity of hearing before passing the order. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17th December 2009 (Exhibit "G" to the petition), passed by the respondent no.2, is quashed and set aside. We, however, clarify that this order shall not prevent the respondents from passing a fresh order, if circumstances so require, cancelling the approval granted to the appointment of the petitioner nos.1 and 2, after giving them an opportunity of being heard. 7. We, however, clarify that this order shall not prevent the respondents from passing a fresh order, if circumstances so require, cancelling the approval granted to the appointment of the petitioner nos.1 and 2, after giving them an opportunity of being heard. 7. Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above.