V.K. Gupta, CJ.—The petitioners who at the relevant time were Members of Himachal Pradesh State Commission for Backward Classes ("Commission" for short), have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs : "(a) To quash Annexure P-12, Notification dated the 14th August, 2003 published on the 16th August, 2003 bearing No. Kalyan-Ch. (10)-1/99-Loose. To quash Annexures P-13 to P-15 whereby the present petitioners have been removed as members of respondents No. 2 Commission and to quash Annexure P-16 whereby the present respondents No. 3 to 5 have been appointed as Members of the said Commission. (b) To direct respondent No. 1 to carry out recommendations made in P-6, P-7, P-8, P-9, P-10 and P-11 being matter of great importance affecting the rights of backward classes and to fulfill the mandate of the Supreme Court. (c) To call for the records of the respondents 1 and 2 pertaining to the matters relating to the present case. (d) To pass any order as may be deemed fit by this Honble Court in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent in the peculiar facts and circumstances relating to the case. (e) Allow cost of the petition in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents."

2. Vide Notification No. Kalyan-Ch(10)-6/90-III dated September 30, 1993, pursuant to the judgment dated November 16, 1992 passed by the Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition No. 930 of 1990; Indra Sawhney and others v. Union of India and others, the Government of Himachal Pradesh issued Himachal Pradesh State Commission for Backward Classes Order, 1993 ("1993 order" for short) whereby it constituted the commission to exercise the power conferred upon it and to perform the functions assigned to it under 1993 Order in accordance with the direction given by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. Undoubtedly, 1993 Order is a pure and simple Executive Order, in the form of an Administrative Instruction and purportedly it has been issued in the purported exercise of the power vested in the State Government under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India.

3. Clause 4(1) of 1993 Order, as it originally stood, read as under: "4(1) Every member shall hold office for a term not exceeding three years at a time from the date he assumed office." (Emphasis supplied)

4. Sub-clause (3) of Clause 4 of 1993 Order which gave the power to the State Government to remove a person from the Office of Member reads thus : "(3) The State Government shall remove a person from the Office of Member if that person:— (a) becomes an undischarged insolvent; (b) is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an offence which, in the opinion of the State Government, involves moral turpitude; (c) becomes of unsound mind and stands to declared by a competent court; (d) refuses to act or becomes incapable of acting; (e) is, without obtaining leave of absence from the Commission, absent from three consecutive meetings of the Commission; or (f) has, in the opinion of the State Government; or so abused the position of Chairperson or Member as to render that persons continuance in office detrimental to the interests of backward classes or the public interest: Provided that no person shall be removed under this clause until that person has been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter."

5. As is, therefore, evident, sub-clause (3) (supra) permitted the State Government to remove a person from the Office of a Member if that person incurred any disqualification or suffered from any disability as is mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) thereof and also that before removing such a person he has to be given an opportunity of being heard in the matter.

6. Various amendments were brought about and incorporated, from time to time in 1993 Order but in the present case we are concerned with the amendment brought about vide Notification No. Kalyan-Ch(10)-l/99-Loose, Dated 14th August, 2003, being H.P. State Commission for Backward