Hansaria, J.- The two petitioners have challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Tuensang, dated 7.10.80 by which he notified the appointment of four persons as nominated members of the Tuensang Town Committee. This had been done in super session of an earlier order dated 16.9.80 by which the petitioner No. 2 had been appointed as one of the nomi­nated members. It may be stated that petitioner No. 1 is an elected member of the Town Committee. Subsequent to the aforesaid order of 7.10.80, a meeting of the Town Committee was held on 6.11.80, which elected respondent No. 7 as the Vice-Chairman of the Town Committee. The prayer in this peti­tion under Article 226 of the Constitution is to quash the order of 7.10.80 as well as to declare the election of respon­dent No. 7 as Vice-Chairman to be illegal. 2. The infirmity in the order of 7.1080 alleged by the petitioners relates to violation of rule 5 of the Naga Hills District (Constitution of Town Committees) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter called the Rules). To appreciate the challenge, we have to read rules 4 and 5. "4. (1) Each Town Committee shall consist of six mem­bers of whom four shall be elected and two nominated: Provided that if the Governor in any cafe so directs, all the members of a particular Committee may be appoi­nted by the Governor for such period as may be speci­fied. (2) The nominated members shall be appointed by the Deputy Commissioner subject to the approval of the Governor and a member so appointed shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor. 5. Not with standing anything contained in the prece­ding rule, the Governor may by notification in the Gazette, increase the number of both the elected and nominated members of a particular Town Committee." 3. A reading of rule 5 leaves no manner of doubt that increase in the number of members of a particular Town Com­mittee has to be done by the Governor, and the same has to be notified in the Gazette. Admittedly no such notification in­creasing the number of nominated members from two to four, or for that matter to three, had been issued. Admittedly no such notification in­creasing the number of nominated members from two to four, or for that matter to three, had been issued. The submission of the learned Advocate General, Nagaland, to sustain the impug­ned order despite lack of the aforesaid notification is that as the order itself was published in the Nagaland Gazette and as the order of nomination had the approval of the Governor, we should impliedly read the approval of the Governor to the increase in number also. We have found it difficult to accept this submission for two reasons : (1) the notification about the increase in number has to be by the Governor or any func­tionary on his behalf as permitted by the Rules of Executive Business. The impugned order as at Annexure-B was however passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the notification in the Nagaland Gazette dated January 15, 1982, is also in the name of the Deputy Commissioner. As such, the notification cannot be held to be by the Governor. (2) As rule 5 speaks of the increase in number not only of the nominated members but also of the elected members, we entertain no doubt that the Rules visualise that increase in number over and above that mentioned in rule 4(1) has to precede the actual appointment of persons. We have taken this view because it cannot be com­prehended that increase even in the number of elected members could be simultaneous with the election of such members. As the rule-making authority could have visualised one procedure for increase of the number of nominated members and another for elected members so it has to be held that increase in the number has to precede the actual appointment. 4. As In this case the Increase In number was admittedly not gazetted either before or even simultaneously of the appoint­ment of the four persons in question, the nomination cannot be upheld and the same is therefore set aside. The meeting of 611.80 which elected Respondent No. 7 was held with the persons nominated vide order dated 7.10.80. But that is not valid in the eye of law. The result is that there was no valid Consti­tution of the Town Committee by 6.11.80. As such no meeting could have been held on that day to elect a Vice-Chairman as contem­plated by rule 8(1) of the Rules. But that is not valid in the eye of law. The result is that there was no valid Consti­tution of the Town Committee by 6.11.80. As such no meeting could have been held on that day to elect a Vice-Chairman as contem­plated by rule 8(1) of the Rules. The election of Respondent No. 7 as Vice-Chairman is the meeting of 6.11.80 had thus no force of law and the same has therefore to be set aside. 5. The result is that the impugned order at Annexure-B of the petition is quashed and the election of respondent No. 7 as Vice-Chair man is declared illegal. It may be stated that the nomination of petitioner No. 2 as well as to meet its grave as he had been so appointed along with two others which could not have been done without increasing the number of nominated members to three, as against two fixed by rule 4(1). As that increase was without any notification in the Gazette as required by rule 5, the nomination of the petitioner No. 2 cannot also be lustained, 6. The petition stands allowed as aforesaid.