A. P. RAVANI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners are the members of Vadodara District Panchayat Vadodara and all of them have been elected and appointed as members of the Social Justice Committee by a resolution passed in the general body meeting of the District Panchayat held on 18/05/1981 The legality and validity of the resolution was challenged before the Development Commissioner inter alia on the ground that the Social Justice Committee did not consist of any member of Scheduled Caste and therefore the constitution of the committee was in contravention of the provisions of sec. 131 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 (hereafter referred to as the Act) and the provisions of Rule 3 of the Gujarat Taluka and District Panchayats Social Justice Committee (Constitution and Functions) Rules 1976 (hereafter referred to as the Rules ). The Development Commissioner held that out of ten members of the Social Justice Committee no member belonged to the Scheduled Caste and therefore the constitution of the Committee was bad and hence he ordered to cancel and set aside the resolution Annexure A by which the Social Justice Committee had been constituted by the District Panchayat. The petitioners who are the members of the District Panchayat and who have been elected and appointed as members of the Social Justice Committee have challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the Development Commissioner. ( 2 ) IT is an admitted position that the total number of elected members of the District Panchayat exceeds 39 and therefore in view of the provisions of Rule 3 (1) (ii) of the Rules the Social Justice Committee should consist of ten members. It is also an admitted position that the Committee consists of one member belonging to Bhangi community as required under Rule 3 (2) (i) of the Rules. The dispute is with regard to the remaining nine members. This aspect is governed by Rule 3 (2) (ii) of the Rules. ( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that the committee consists of ten members nine of them are elected members while one member belonging to Bhangi community has been coopted as required under Rule 3 (2) (i) of the Rules. This aspect is governed by Rule 3 (2) (ii) of the Rules. ( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that the committee consists of ten members nine of them are elected members while one member belonging to Bhangi community has been coopted as required under Rule 3 (2) (i) of the Rules. It is also not in dispute that one member of the Committee is female as required under proviso to Rule 3 (2) (ii) of the Rules It is also not in dispute that all the nine members belong to scheduled Tribe. Relying on the provisions of sec. 131 of the Act and the provisions of Rule 3 (2) (ii) of the Rules it is contended that there should be some members belonging to Scheduled Caste and if the committee does not consist of any member belonging to Schedule Caste the constitution of the Committee would be illegal and void. The aforesaid contention found favour with the Development Commissioner and therefore he held the resolution by which the Committee has been constituted to be illegal and void. The provisions governing the constitution of the Social Justice Committee are to be found in sec. 131 of the Act and the relevant part of which is reproduced hereinbelow:"131 (1) A district panchayat shall constitute the following committees namely : (i) xx xx xx xx (ii) A Social Justice Committee for performing such functions as are considered essential for securing social justice to the weaker sections of the society including persons belonging to the prescribed Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as may be prescribed. Provided that it should be lawful for the Social Justice Committee to appoint one or more sub-committees from amongst its members to inquire into cases of any discrimination against members of backward class including Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the matter of use of such wells tanks bathing ghats roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of the State or panchayat funds or dedicated to the use of the general public". The relevant part of the Rules regarding constitution of the Committees read as follows: 3 Constitution of Committees (1) The Committee shall (i) in the case of a taluka panchayat consist of not less than six and not more than ten members as follows namely : (a) xx xx xx xx (b) xx xx xx xx (c) xx xx xx xx (ii) in the case of a district panchayat consist of not less than eight and not more than ten members as follows namely : (a) xx xx xx xx (b) When the total number of elected members of the district panchayat under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 15 exceeds 39 members the committee shall consist of ten members. (2) The Panchayat shall appoint the members of the Committee from the elected members of the Panchayat in the following manner : (i) xx xx xx xx (ii) remaining members from persons who are members of the Panchayat elected on the seats reserved for the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Provided that out of the persons so appointed atleast one person shall be a woman". Sec. 131 of the Act provides that the District Panchayat shall constitute a Social Justice Committee for securing social justice to the weaker section 9 of the society including persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as may be prescribed. Therefore we are required to look at the provisions of the Rules. The relevant part of the provisions of the Rules which has been reproduced hereinabove enjoins upon the panchayat a duty to constitute a Social Justice Committee in which the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes should be included to the extent indicated in the Rules. In this case it would be nine persons. The rule does not say that. there should be atleast one member of the Scheduled Caste or that there should be atleast one member of Scheduled Tribe. The Rule also does not say that there should be equal proportion in the constitution of the committee of two different groups i. e. Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. All that the rule requires is that the remaining members (i. e. nine members in this case) of the committee should be persons elected on reserved seats belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. All that the rule requires is that the remaining members (i. e. nine members in this case) of the committee should be persons elected on reserved seats belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In the context of the rules the word and occurring between Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes has got to be read as word or. It cannot be read to mean that the roles envisage that members of both castes in certain proportion should be included in the committee. If the rule making authority had any such intention then it would have been mentioned that there shall be atleast one member belonging to the Scheduled Caste and/or Scheduled Tribe It has got to be noted that whenever the rule making authority thought that there should be minimum representation of a particular group the same has been taken care of. Rule 3 (2) (i) makes it clear that the panchayat has been enjoined a duty to include one member belonging to Bhangi community. Similarly in Proviso to Rule 3 (2) (ii) a duty has been cast upon the Panchayat to include one female member. No such express provision is made with respect to the proportion of the members belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In absence of any such provision in the rules it cannot be said that the rule making authority had intended that there should be representation of both groups i. e. of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in equal proportion or to the extent of minimum one person. Reading the rule in that fashion would amount to adding or subtracting the words by the Court. This is ordinarily not permissible unless by implications the Court is required to add or subtract certain words and read the rule in that particular fashion. But in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the context of setting of sec. 131 of the Act and the rules referred to hereinabove there is no room for adding or subtracting any word in the rules enacted for the purpose of constituting of committees. Therefore the interpretation made by the Development Commissioner and the order passed by the Development Commissioner does not seem to be correct. 131 of the Act and the rules referred to hereinabove there is no room for adding or subtracting any word in the rules enacted for the purpose of constituting of committees. Therefore the interpretation made by the Development Commissioner and the order passed by the Development Commissioner does not seem to be correct. ( 4 ) IT is true that in a given case it may happen that one of the two groups i. e. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes may not have any representative on the Social Justice Committee. But this is likely to be a rare phenomenon as it has happened in this particular case However it will be for the rule making authority to see that this lacuna is removed. If the rule making authority thinks so fit appropriate amendment may be made in the Rules. It would not be open to the Court to add or subtract certain words or to read the words in different manner than ordinarily understood. ( 5 ) IN the result the petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Development Commissioner which is produced at annexure C to the petition is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (KMV) petition allowed J Rule made absolute. .