ORDER 1. THE RESPONDENTS WERE REMOVED FROM THE COMMISSION BY THE ORDER DATED 27-6-1997 PASSED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT EXERCISING POWERS UNDER SECTION 6(1) OF THE UTTAR PRADESH HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICES COMMISSION ACT, 1980 ("THE ACT" FOR SHORT) READ WITH THE U.P. HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICES COMMISSION (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE, 1997. THEY QUESTIONED THE VALIDITY AND CORRECTNESS OF THE SAID ORDER BEFORE THE HIGH COURT BY FILING THE WRIT D PETITION. THE HIGH COURT, ON EXAMINATION OF THE CONTENTIONS RAISED IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE IT, CONCLUDED THAT THE RESPONDENTS COULD NOT BE REMOVED FROM THEIR OFFICE AS THEY DID NOT COMMIT ANY ACT OF MISCONDUCT; MERE DISOBEDIENCE OF ANY DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE GOVERNMENT COULD NOT BE MADE A GROUND TO REMOVE THEM FROM THE OFFICE EXERCISING POWERS UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE ACT. THIS APART, LEARNED ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL REPRESENTING THE STATE MADE A CATEGORICAL STATEMENT BEFORE THE HIGH COURT THAT SECTION 6 OF THE ACT WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE HIGH COURT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS RECORDED THUS: "THE ORDER OF REMOVAL RECITED THAT THE SAME WAS PASSED IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS VESTED WITH THE STATE GOVERNMENT UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE ACT, WHICH THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL HIMSELF CONCEDED, WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE." 2. RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 HAD RETIRED ON THE DATE WHEN THE HIGH COURT PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. RESPONDENT 1 RETIRED A FEW DAYS LATER I.E. ON 14-9-1998. TAKING NOTE OF THIS FACT ALSO, THE HIGH COURT ALLOWED THE WRIT PETITION AND GRANTED RELIEF TO THE RESPONDENTS AS STATED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT THE HIGH COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR IN GRANTING RELIEF TO THE RESPONDENTS, AS IS DONE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER; WHEN THE RESPONDENTS DELIBERATELY DISOBEYED THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT, THEY WERE UNFIT TO CONTINUE AS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION; THE STATE GOVERNMENT HAD AMPLE POWER TO PASS THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE ACT READ WITH THE AMENDING ORDINANCE REFERRED TO ABOVE. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, DISOBEDIENCE OF THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF AMOUNTED TO MISCONDUCT. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, MR A. SHARAN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS ARGUED IN SUPPORT AND JUSTIFICATION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 5. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, DISOBEDIENCE OF THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF AMOUNTED TO MISCONDUCT. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, MR A. SHARAN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS ARGUED IN SUPPORT AND JUSTIFICATION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 5. THE HIGH COURT, IN OUR VIEW, WAS RIGHT IN GRANTING RELIEF TO THE RESPONDENTS, HAVING RECORDED THE FINDINGS AFTER EXAMINING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. WE ALSO NOTICED FROM THE RECORD THAT EVEN SUFFICIENT TIME AND OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE RESPONDENTS TO GIVE EXPLANATION. HARDLY ONLY FOUR HOURS TIME WAS GIVEN TO SUBMIT THEIR EXPLANATION. IT IS YET ANOTHER POINTER AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT ORDER. 6. APART FROM THIS, WHEN THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL HIMSELF CONCEDED THAT SECTION 6 WAS NOT ATTRACTED TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SUSTAIN THE GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED REMOVING THE RESPONDENTS FROM OFFICE. EVEN ON THAT GROUND THE HIGH COURT WAS RIGHT IN GRANTING RELIEF TO THE RESPONDENTS BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION. WE AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE HIGH COURT. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS FOUND HIMSELF IN DIFFICULTY IN OVERCOMING THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL. 7. IN THIS VIEW, FROM ANY ANGLE THE APPEAL IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT AND CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS DISMISSED, BUT, WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.