New Delhi, March 19 :    New Delhi, March 19:  The Prime Minister's two-most influential men, Brajesh Mishra and N.K. Singh, today refused to quit their posts despite mounting pressure on them to do so following the Tehelka revelations. The two men, who wield enormous clout in the Prime Minister's Office, confronted the media and said they were here to stay because they still 'enjoyed' Atal Bihari Vajpayee's confidence. Mishra, principal secretary to Vajpayee and national security adviser, and Singh, officer on special duty in the PMO, have been sucked into a storm following the sting operation. The Opposition as well as the BJP's allies have demanded their removal for their alleged involvement in defence deals. The Sangh parivar, too, had dubbed the PMO a super power-centre, but later toned down its criticism. The shift in the RSS' stand has given the PMO officials a shot in the arm. Vajpayee's team members are trying to send the message that they are a cohesive group and are far from 'incompetent' or vulnerable to corruption. Mishra explained that they had to call a news meet because Parliament had been crippled and the government had not been able to clarify the PMO's stand. Mishra, who spoke first at the unprecedented news conference, denied any wrongdoing and said allegations that he fixed defence deals and helped fund the BJP were 'baseless'. He said he has been the Prime Minister's principal secretary for three years and the national security adviser for over two years, but Vajpayee had never discussed any defence deal with him. In a one-page statement, Mishra said: 'Bangaru Laxman has never spoken to me about any defence deals or about funding his political party with my help or that of the PMO. I do not know Mr R.K. Gupta (the arms sales middleman who features in the Tehelka tapes) or his son and have not had any contact with them.' Like Vajpayee and George Fernandes before him, Mishra took potshots at the press. The statement said: 'Media ethics demand that before allegations against a person are made public, he or she is given a chance to rebut them. It is regrettable that in the present case, ethical values were not observed.' Asked if he would follow the path taken by Fernandes and resign, pat came the reply: 'I shall go if it helps strengthen the Prime Minister's hands.' He asserted that he had not been asked to quit nor had he offered to do so. Mishra defended the Prime Minister's son-in-law, Ranjan Bhattacharya. 'Bhattacharya does not work in the PMO. I have never seen him in the PMO in the last three years that I have worked there,' the principal secretary said. 'My family lives with me in my house. Is that extra-constitutional?' he added. On the criticism from the Sangh parivar, Mishra was quick to point out that two different statements had been attributed to RSS chief K.S. Sudarshan on the 'inefficiency' in the PMO. He did not know which one was being referred to and so would not like to comment. Mishra reminded reporters that in his resignation letter, Laxman had said he had never spoken to the Prime Minister or with anyone else in the PMO about defence deals. Mishra agreed that the defence establishment had been penetrated by middlemen. But he denied that he was a superpower in the PMO. Both Mishra and Singh sought to send the signal that the PMO was not a super-office that dabbled in everything. The officials took pains to assert that the PMO did not interfere in the running of ministries and involved itself only in case of specific requests. They pointed out that a system of checks and balances was in place which did not allow the PMO to take a dictatorial posture.