Lahiri, J.- Whether the members of the Chutiya community are entitled to preference in respect of settlement of country spirit shops under Rule 223 of the Assam Excise Rules, for short "the Rules", made under the Assam Excise Act, 1910 ? This is precisely the question which has been referred to us for our decision. 2. To get a grip of the question and for the resolution it is pertinent to extract the provisions of Rule 223 of "the Rules" : "223.(1) Settlement of country spirit shops shall be made giving adequate representation to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Of the total number of shops to be settled in a Sub-division, a minimum quota of such shops to be settled with persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall be fixed on the basis of population of those communities in the sub-division. (2) In making settlement to any person preference shall always be given to the educated unemployed youths or to Co-operatives and Co-opt. Firms formed by such educated unemployed youth. Preference shall also be given to the persons belonging to the more backward community of the other Backward Classes. (3) While making settlement to such persons due consi­deration shall be given to the economic backwardness of the person seeking settlement. No person shall be considered economically backward unless the annual income of such person or his parents is less than Rs. 5,000. The direction issued by the State Government in this respect shall be scrupulously followed. (4) * * * [Emphasis supplied]. It is thus seen that under Rule 223(1), shops are reserved for settlement with persons belonging to the Sheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes on the basis of the population of those communities in the Sub-division. It is in consonence with the provisions of Article 15(4) read with Article 46 of the Consti­tution. Rule 223(2) speaks about giving preference to certain classes. The persons entitled to preference fall in two categories : (I) In the first category of such persons fall -(i) the educated unemployed youths and, (ii) Co-operatives or Co-operative Firms formed by educated unemployed youths. In their case it is stated that "preference shall always be given". This is projected to achieve the aim and object of the State policy under our socialist, democratic republic, which is a welfare State. In their case it is stated that "preference shall always be given". This is projected to achieve the aim and object of the State policy under our socialist, democratic republic, which is a welfare State. The provisions are tuned to the directive principles of the State Policy contained in Article 41 of the Constitution, which provides, inter alia, that the State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provisions for securing the right to work and public assistance in the cases of unemployment and in any other cases of undeserved want. The specific command of the rule is that preference shall always be given to the educated unemployed youths. The second class of persons entitled to preference are those who belong "to more backward community of the other Backward Classes". All these preferences relate to the settlement of shops in "un-reserved" or ''open country spirit shops". Pre­ference to "persons belonging to the more backward Classes" is in terms of the provisions of Article 15 (4) read with Article 46 of the Constitution. By virtue of the Constitution (First Amendment Act, 1951), which amended Article 15 (4), such prefer­ence may be validity made thereunder. It will be seen that reservation have been made under Rule 223 (1) to persons socially and educationally backward, whereas grant of preference to the unemployed youths is primarily based on economic consideration. However, it appears that the preference to the other Backward Classes has been provided for those who are 'socially and educa­tionally backward'. It is provided in Rule 223 (3) that while making settlement to such persons "due consideration" should be given to the economic backwardness of the persons seeking settle­ment. It is, therefore, seen that persons referred in Rule 223 (2) are entitled to preference but due consideration must be given to the economic backwardness of the persons seeking settlement. The yard stick for measuring the economic backwardness of the persons has been determined. It is provided that no person should be considered economically backward unless the annual income of the person or his parents is less than Rs. 5,000. If this consideration is not fulfilled, a person seeking settlement shall not be entitled to claim preference as "economically back­ward" and all persons entitled to preference shall stand on the same footing. It is provided that no person should be considered economically backward unless the annual income of the person or his parents is less than Rs. 5,000. If this consideration is not fulfilled, a person seeking settlement shall not be entitled to claim preference as "economically back­ward" and all persons entitled to preference shall stand on the same footing. Rule 223 (3) provides that the directions issued by the State Government in respect of the persons referred in 'the Rule' should be scrupulously followed by the Settling Autho­rities. Rule 223 (2) provides that preference shall be given to persons belonging to the more backward community of the Other Backward Classes. As such persons belonging to the more backward community of the "Other Backward Classes" are surely entitled to preference in getting settlement of country sprit shop. There is no wrangle at the bar that such provisions are for upgrading the socially and educationally backward classes and this could be validly made under Article 15 (4) read with Article 46 of the Constitution. 3. By Notification No. ABM. 18/56/14 dated 4.8.56 Government of Assam issued instructions for granting preferential treatment in settlement of contracts, permits, fisheries, excise shops etcetra. It provides that all authorities connected with such settlements will specially promote the economic interest of "the weaker section of people" apart from the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. It also provides that till the final list is published by the Government the classes of people who have already been accepted by the State Government as "backward category of people" should be considered to be entitled to preferential trea­tment. The instructions were directed to be applied to all depart­ments of the State Government. By another Notification No. ABM 18/56/21 dated 4.8.65 it has been provided that the instructions contained in "the earlier notification" might be considered as the basis of the rules and regulation to be framed by various departments. The original Office Memo No. ABM/56/18 dated 4.8.56 was also amended by Notification No. ABM/18/56/Pt./90 dated 2.1.60 which provides that all concessions mentioned in "the earlier notification" should be allowed to the other back­ward classes also. By notification No. TAD/BC/6/61/15 dated 12.9.61 the Government of Assam published a revised provisi­onal list of the community belonging to the other Backward Classes for the purpose of granting educational facilities and other concessions in the State. We extract the relevant provisi­ons of notification : "3. By notification No. TAD/BC/6/61/15 dated 12.9.61 the Government of Assam published a revised provisi­onal list of the community belonging to the other Backward Classes for the purpose of granting educational facilities and other concessions in the State. We extract the relevant provisi­ons of notification : "3. A revised provisional list of the communities belon­ging to the other Backward Classes for the purpose of granting educational facilities and other concessions in this state, is given below- Provisional List of Other Backward Clssess in Assam- 1. * * * * * * 6. Chutiya * * [Emphasis supplied] It is thus seen that the list of the communities belonging to the other Backward Classes for the purpose of granting other concessions in the State contains the community styled as "Chutiya". As such, the members of the community falls in the list of other Backward Classes in Assam. It is also seen that they are entitled to educational facilities and other concessions in the Stated It appears that the members of the "Chutiya" com­munity do belong to the other Backward Classes, as such, they are entitled to the concessions or preferences. 4. As alluded the aims and objects of Rules 223 are to upgrade the condition of the members of the Backward Classes who are socially and economically backward, covered by Article 15 (4) of the Constitution read with the Directive Principles of the State Policy. As such, the beneficial provisions granting con­cession to the classes of persons should receive liberal cons­truction, in favour of the persons referred in "the Rule". We have no hesitation in reaching the conclusion that the members of the Chutiya community, who belong to the other Backward Classes are also entitled to preference. However, inter se the more backward community of the Other Backward Classes shall be entitled to the preference. A particular backward community belon­ging to other Backward Classes may be socially and educationally more backward in a particular sub-division than the other communi­ties belonging to the other Backward Classes. The conditions of the members of the other Backward Classes are not the same or similar throughout the State of Assam. Rule 223(2), therefore, provides for preference to the members of the backward Classes, and inter se, persons belonging to the more backward community in a sub-division is given the foremost preference. The conditions of the members of the other Backward Classes are not the same or similar throughout the State of Assam. Rule 223(2), therefore, provides for preference to the members of the backward Classes, and inter se, persons belonging to the more backward community in a sub-division is given the foremost preference. In determin­ing the question as to which community is more backward in a particular area the focal point ought to be seeing which commu­nity is socially and educationally the most backward in that area. Therefore, Chutiyas are undoubtedly members of the Back­ward Classes and they are entitled to preference under Rule 223 (2), however, if in a particular sub-division there are members of the other Backward Classes, socially and educationally more backward than the Chutiyas, the former shall be entitled to get the preference over the members of the Chutiya community. However, due consideration must be given to the economic backwardness of the persons seeking settlement. Therefore, if in a sub-division a Chutiya seeking settlement is found to be economically more backward than the persons belonging to the other backward classes, the former ought to get the preference under sub-rule (3) of Rule 223. This principle of giving preference to the most backward classes belonging to the other backward communities in a sub­division is in pari materia with the principles contained in rule 223(1). Under Rule 223(1) there is no absolute reservation for any particular members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes. The reservations vary according to the population basis of those communities in that sub-division. Therefore, the reser­vation is also not static under Rule 223(1). Similarly, entitle­ment to preference is also not static in a particular sub-division, they will vary according to social, educational and economic backwardness of the members of the other Backward Classes. 5. Mr. B. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the preference can only be given to the more back­ward community of the other Backward Classes and the person seeking settlement cannot get any preference merely because he is a member of the other Backward Classes; he must be a person belonging to the more backward community of the other Back­ward Classes. According to Mr. According to Mr. Goswami the list of the back­ward classes have been published, the members of the Chutiya Community are undoubtedly members of the other Backward Classes but there is no declaration made by the State Govern­ment enumerating persons belonging to the more backward commu­nities of the other Backward Classes" and until the said list is published or made by the Government, the members of the other Backward Classes are not entitled to any preference under Rule 223 of "the Rules". In short, the submission of Mr. Goswami is that when the Rule was framed no community was declared to be "more backward community of the other Backward Classes", so the rule was made for future contingency. It could apply only when the members of the more backward community are listed by the State Government which is yet to be made. In our opinion the words are to be undertood by looking at the subject matter they are speaking and the object sought to be achieved. The question of interpretation arises when the meaning is ambiguous, but when the words are unambiguous the inten­tion is best declared by the words themselves. The Golden Rule of interpretation is that the words used were correctly and exactly expressed and never expressed loosely and inexactly. We are also to give construction which is consistent with the smooth working of the system which the rule purports to be regulating. Any alternative should be rejected which will introduce uncertainly, friction or confusion into the working of the system. We cannot assume that the rule making authority dealt an uncertain state of law and that the rule should be understood in the light of that uncertainly. 6. Bearing in mind the rules of construction, if we analyse the rule, it will be apparent that the concessions are appli­cable to the members of the Other Backward Classes. How­ever, social and educational backwardness of the members of the communities belonging to the Other- Backward Classes may not be the same throughout the State of Assam. One of the communities in ''the list" may be socially and educationally more brackward in one sub-division but the members of the same community may be more advanced than the other Backward communities in another sub-division. One of the communities in ''the list" may be socially and educationally more brackward in one sub-division but the members of the same community may be more advanced than the other Backward communities in another sub-division. The rule making autho­rity positively declared that the members of the backward classes will also get preference under Rule 223 (2) of the Rules, how­ever, social and educational backwardness of a community may be more backward in one sub-division but they may not be so in respect of the same community in another sub-division, accor­dingly, the settling authority has been given the option to decide which community of the Other Backward Classes is more back­ward and person belonging to that class will get preference over the rest or others. 7. In the result we answer the question posed before us as follows: That the members of the Chutiya Community belong to the Other Backward Classes and they are entitled to preference under Rule 223(2), subject to the conditions set forth in the said Rules and sub-rule (3) of Rule 223. However, whether a member seeking settlement will get the first preference or not depends on the questions as to whether the persons seeking settlement belongs to the community which is socially and educa­tionally most backward in the sub-division. A Chutiya seeking sett­lement and found to be economically and educationally more backward than other members of backward classes may be enti­tled to preference over others under Rule 223(2) of the Rules. We hold on consideration of the provisions of Rules 223 of the Rules read with the relevant notification that the members of Chutiya communities belong to the Other Backward Classes and they are entitled to preference under Rule 223(2) of "the Rules" subject to the limitation contained therein and explicated above. 8. Accordingly, on answering the Reference we remit the case to the Bench for deciding the question on merit. N. Ibotombi Singh, J. :- I concur with the views just expressed by my learned brother Lahiri, J. and proposed to remit the case to the bench to decide the case on merit. Hansaria, J- :- I agree that the matter may be remitted back to the Division Bench as ordered by Hon'ble Lahiri, J. and Hon'ble Singh, J. However, I reserve my veiws on the questioned referred. Hansaria, J- :- I agree that the matter may be remitted back to the Division Bench as ordered by Hon'ble Lahiri, J. and Hon'ble Singh, J. However, I reserve my veiws on the questioned referred. Hansaria, J.-(22.8.83.) Despite the profound respect which I have for my learned brothers, I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the view which has appealed to them. Though in our rule as interpreters, we can iron out creases found in a statue, we can­not change its texture, nor can we weave our thoughts in it. If we were to accept the interpretation given by the majority, I would think we would really be re-writing the second part of sub-rule (2) to read : "Preference shall also be given to the persons belonging to the Other Backward Classes". The effect of the same would be that the words "the more backward community" finding place in the rule as framed would stand deleted. The rule making authority in its wisdom sought to give preference to the "more backward community" of the Other Backward Classes. The question is Can we expand its beneficial provision to all the members of the OBCs ? No. doubt, OBCs belong to the weaker sections of the community and Article 46 of the Constitution desires State action to promote their educational and economic interests. If two interpretations are reasonably possible, it is true that this Court should construe a provision in such a way which would be in harmony with the Directive Principles. But as a judicial organ of the State, we cannot make available the benefits which the legislative wings or its delegatee has not. Not that the rule making authority was obvious of its duty towards weaker sections of the society. Subrule (1) has even reserved some shops for members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Having thus taken care of the lowest strata of the oppressed people, in sub-rule (2) preference was made available only to the more backward community of the Other Backward Classes. This was perhaps done because it might have been felt that all the communities belonging to the Other Backward Classes do not need a preference or protection; and so in its wisdom the rule making authority confined the preference to the more backward community of the OBCs. This was perhaps done because it might have been felt that all the communities belonging to the Other Backward Classes do not need a preference or protection; and so in its wisdom the rule making authority confined the preference to the more backward community of the OBCs. If we were to give benefit of this provision to all the members of the OBCs, we would be omitting some vital words in it, which we cannot do. 2. There is another difficulty in accepting the preposition put forward in the leading judgment. The same is that if two or more persons belonging to different communities of the OBC's come forward, how would the settling authority decide who is "more backward" in the absence of any prior determination of this aspect of the matter by the competent authority. The Exe­cutive Instruction dated 12.9.61 to which reference has been made, does not speak of "more backward community" belonging to the OBCs. Even if the authority were to adjudge the matter with reference to economic backwardness as projected in the judgment of my learned brother (this does not really seem per­missible according to me for reasons being given later), I would think it would be a stupendous and impossible task, as, on what data the economic backwardness of a whole community would be determined by the settling authority ? And if this aspect were to vary from place to place, the predicament can be well understood. Indeed, every settling authority would reach its own decision on this aspect and this itself will give rise to endless dispute. An interpretation which gives rise to such a situation has to be avoided. 3. In so far as the executive Instructions dated 4.8.56, 12.9.61 and others are concerned, I would like to observe that in my view they cannot prevail over sub-rule (2), inasmuch as the latter is a statutory provision and the former are mere executive Instructions. No doubt, Executive Instructions can fill up the gaps, but they cannot run counter to the statutory rules. The field of preference to the persons belonging to the OBC-s being covered by sub-rule (2), I do not think if aid of the aforesaid executive instructions can be taken. No doubt, Executive Instructions can fill up the gaps, but they cannot run counter to the statutory rules. The field of preference to the persons belonging to the OBC-s being covered by sub-rule (2), I do not think if aid of the aforesaid executive instructions can be taken. It is worth while to point out that the aforesaid executive instructions being prior to the framing of the aforesaid rule in 1974, the question of their filling up the gaps in a later provision does not really arise. This apart, though it has been stated in sub-rule (3), to which our attention has been drawn by Shri Talukdar, that the direction issued by the State Government shall be scrupulously followed, the operation of sub-rule (3) itself depends on who are the persons entitled to preference under sub-rules (1) and (2). This follows from the opening words of sub-rule (3) which states that "While making settlement to such persons" (emphasis supplied) due consideration shall be given to what has been stated in sub-rule (3). So, for getting consideration under sub-rule (3), a person must be such to whom settlement is being made in pursuance to the preference mentioned in the preceding sub-rules. Consideration of economic backwardness visualised by sub-rule (3) cannot, therefore, operate de hors the provisions contained in sub-rules (1) and (2). 4. I am conscious that while so interpreting sub-rule (2) the second part of it would almost become a dead letter, beca­use the rule making authority has not specified as to who are the "more backward" communities of the OBCs. But then this cannot be a reason to ignore the plain language of the sub-rule. This is not the first provision of its kind which has not become effective for want of necessary subsequent action. Reference may be made to the Assam Children Act which was ena­cted in 1971 but has not been brought into force till today. A more recent example is that of not bringing into force the amendment to Article 22(4) brought about by the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978 which was the subject matter of some grievance in A. K. Roy vs. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 710 . The majority led by Chandrachud, C. J. did not agree that it could give any direction to the Central Government to bring into force the a foresaid amendment. 5. The majority led by Chandrachud, C. J. did not agree that it could give any direction to the Central Government to bring into force the a foresaid amendment. 5. I would, therefore, hold that a person of Chutiya comm­unity as such cannot claim preference under Rule 223(2). Before parting, I would, however, like to state that the rule making authority should specify as to which are the communities, accor­ding to it, who would be regarded as "more backward" within the meaning of the aforesaid rule so that the preference envi­saged for them could be made available; and the wish expressed in the sub-rule does not remain a pious hope only.