R.K. Manisana, J.- The question which has been referred to the Division Bench for decision by the Hon'ble Single Bench Judge is "whether Siem of Mylliem has to be regarded as tribal or non-tribal". 2. In T.S. No. 34 of 1965 of the Court of the Assistant to Deputy Commissioner Shillong. "Siem of Mylliem" was impleaded as a proforma defendant. A question arose whether "Siem of Mylliem' is tribal or non-tribal for the purpose of determination of jurisdiction of that Court. 3. Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has con­tended that Siem is elected or, nominated from the members of certain families known as the CniePs families and then appointed by the Executive Committee of the District Council and, therefore, Siem is tribal. Mr. M. Z. Ahmed the learned counsel for the respondent, has contended that the person who is appointed as the Siem holds an "office" and, as such, the question of tribal and non-tribal does not arise. 4. The question which, therefore, arises for consideration is whether the person who is appointed as the Siem holds an 'office'. The word 'office' has various meaning and we have to see which is the appropriate meaning to be described to the word in the context of the case. In Statemen (P) Ltd. ys. H. Deb, AIR 1968 SC 1495 , the Supreme Court approved the observations of Lord Wright in Macmillan vs. Guest, 1942 AC 561 to the following effect. "The word 'office' is of indefinite content. Its various meaning cover four columns of the New English Dictionary but I take as the most relevant for purpose of this case the following : "A position or place to which certain duties are attached, especially one of a more or less public character." In (1922) 8 Tax Case 231, it was observed that "an office or employment which was subsisting, permanent, substantive position, which had an existence independent from the person who filled it, which went on and was filled in succession by successive holders." (Emphasis added) The above quotation was accepted by Lord Atkin in Macmillan vs. Guest, (1943) 24 Tax Case 190. The Supreme Court in Kanta Kathuria vs. Manak Chand, AIR 1970 SC 694 has held: 'In our view there is no essential difference between the definition given by Lord Wright and Lord Atkin." In our view, in the context, 'office' means a position to which certain duties of a public character are attached. In other words, the persons holding the office is to perform certain duties and dis­charge certain obligations of a public character. But an 'office' has an existence independent of the person who filled it. 5. Let us now examine the case on hand. Section 2 (a) of the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and Succession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959, for short "the Act", defines Chief in the following terms : "Chief" means a Siem, a Lyngdoh, a Dolloi, a Sirdar or a Wahadadar, as the case may be, of any elaka". Elaka is an administrative unit in the District (see section 2 (i) of the Act). Section 3 of the Act provides for election or nomination of Chiefs. In the absence1 of Rules or Order the election is to be held or the nomination is to be made in accordance with the existing custom. No Rules and/or Order were brought to our notice. Nomination is to be made or election is to be held as is provided under section 4. Chiefs are appointed under section 5 of the Act. Section 5 provides that on the basis of result referred to in section 4, the Executive Committee shall recommend the appointment of the nominated or elected Chief to the next session of the Council, and after the approval of the Council, shall forthwith issue appointment order under such terms and conditions as the Executive Committee may provide. Section 6 provides for removal and suspension of Chiefs. In section 6 the word 'office' has been employed. Under section 6 the Chiefs may be removed from office or suspended by the Executive Committee if in its opinion any of the clause of that section is satisfies. However, no Chiefs shall be removed from office or punished with the suspension unless he is given an opportunity of being heard. Section 12 provides that all the Chiefs shall be governed by provisions of rules 3 to 9 of Chapter VII of the United Khasi Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council Services Rules, 1961 for short "the Rules". However, no Chiefs shall be removed from office or punished with the suspension unless he is given an opportunity of being heard. Section 12 provides that all the Chiefs shall be governed by provisions of rules 3 to 9 of Chapter VII of the United Khasi Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council Services Rules, 1961 for short "the Rules". Section 2 (f) defines "the Chief and his Durbar". Under section 2 (f) the function of the Durbar is to run the day to day administration of the Elaka. 6. The rules 3 to 9 of the Rules are conditions of services or conduct rules which are generally made by an employer. Rule 3 prohibits a Chief from taking part in politics, etc. Under rule 4 no Chief shall participate in any demonstration or resort to any form of strike in connection with any matter pertaining to his conditions of service. Rule 5, 6,7 and 8 relates to “joining of any association", ''connection with the press and radio". "Criticism of the executive committee of the District Council", and "giving of evidence in an inquiry* respectively. Rule 9 provides that no Chief shall, except in accordance with any general or special order of the Committee or in the performance in good faith of the duties assigned to him, communicate directly or indirectly any official document or information to any other person or to the press, to whom he is not authorised to communicate such document or information. 7. Under rule 7 (2) of the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953 Courts of the Siem listed in Appendix II shall be the Additional Subordinate District Council Courts. Mylliem is included in the Appendix II. 8. The above referred to provisions indicate that the Chief is appointed by the Executive Committee after the election or nomination. The conditions of service of Chief are regulated by the Act. As already stated, in section 6 of the word 'office' had been employed. The Chiefs enjoy statutory status and have to perform judicial and administrative duties. Therefore, we are of the view that a Chief holds a position to which certain duties of a public character are attached, i. e. a Chief is to perform certain duties and discharge certain obligations of a public character. The Chiefs enjoy statutory status and have to perform judicial and administrative duties. Therefore, we are of the view that a Chief holds a position to which certain duties of a public character are attached, i. e. a Chief is to perform certain duties and discharge certain obligations of a public character. For this reason, we hold that the person who is appointed as the Chief holds an office, but the Chief does not hold under the State Government. 9. Admittedly, in the present case the person holding the office of Siem of Mylliem shall be tribal belonging to Chief's families. The next question which, therefore, arises for consideration is whether the Siem of Mylliem is to be regarded as tribal for reason that the office must be held by a tribal. 10. Mr. M. Z. Ahmed has contended that tribal is referable of applicable to natural person. But 'office' is not a natural person, 'office' cannot acquire quality or character of a tribal and, therefore, the Siem of Mylliem is not to be regarded a tribal. To support his contention Mr. Ahmed has referred us to the decision in NCR District Council vs. Neithang Hamar, 1973 ALR 312 (DB). In that case it has been held that the District Council do not belong to any Schedule Tribe as the District Council is a juridical person, and that the District Council Court has no jurisdiction to try any suit by or against the District Council. 11. Para I-A of the Khasi Siemships (Administration of. Justice) Order, 1950, for short "the Order'' runs as follows : "In this order, 'Siem' means the customary head of the Khasi trible institution of an administrative area of the United Khasi -Jaintia Hills District known as the Khasi State prior to the comm­encement of the Constitution of India recognised as such by the Governor of Assam and includes a Sirdar, Lyngdoh or Wahadadar; as the case may be, and the term "Siemship should be construed accordingly". (Emphasis added) The above quoted passage shows that the Siem is the customary head of the Khasi tribal institution, i. e. the aforesaid customary head is termed as the Siem. The appointment of Siem, however, may be made under the Act after its enforcement. It is stated at the bar that before the commencement of the Act, the Chiefs of some Elakas were hereditary under the custom. The appointment of Siem, however, may be made under the Act after its enforcement. It is stated at the bar that before the commencement of the Act, the Chiefs of some Elakas were hereditary under the custom. That apart, the “short title" of the Act also mentions "succession". As already stated, under the Act, the election is to be held, or nomination is to be made, for the purpose of appointment of Sietn in accordance with the existing custom. The office of the Siem was in existence before the commencement of the Constitution. Siem was the customary head of the Khasi tribal institution and was recognised as Ruler, or the position of Siem was in the nature of ruler ship, prior to the commencement of tae Constitution. The Siem had not only discharged the duties in connection with his office but he had personal interest of a beneficial character which was sanctioned by customs. Both the elements of office and the personal interest were blended together and neither could be detached from other. The personal or beneficial interest of Siem attached to the institution was his powers of administration and his right to create the derivative tenures in respect of the properties in the Siemship; and these and other rights of similar character sanctioned by custom invested with the office of the Siem apart from his privileges. It appears that this position was not much changed even after the commencement of the Act. After the commencement of the Constitution, the Act was enacted by the District Council under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. The Act has not completely destroyed the character of ruler ship and the personal or beneficial interest of Siems, but the Act regulates the rights, duties and interest of the Siem having regards to the existing custom. It may be noted here that the Chief can be removed if he violates the customary rights and practices prevailing in the Elaka concerned, under section 6 (f) of the act. 12. At this stage, it will be helpful to refer to section 87-B, CPC. Under section 87-B suits against "Rulers" of former Indian States were barred except with the consent of the Central Government. 12. At this stage, it will be helpful to refer to section 87-B, CPC. Under section 87-B suits against "Rulers" of former Indian States were barred except with the consent of the Central Government. "Ruler* is defined in Article 363 of the Constitution of India in the following terms : “Ruler" means the Prince, Chief or other person who, at any time before the commencement of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth) Amendment Act, 1971, was recognised by the President as the Ruler of an Indian State or any person who, at any time before such commencement, was recognised by the President as the successor of such Ruler". (Emphasis added) However, custom or personal law relating to the succession to the Gaddi or Rulership was guaranteed by the Merger Agreement. Rulers of these Indian States were recognised as ruling chiefs. On rea'ing of section 85,86 and 87, CPC, it appears that suits against the Ruler was a suit against the person who was recognised by the President as the Ruler. 13. Under the Act there is no provision that the Chiefship is a body corporate. Drawing an anology between the Ruler and the Siem, the Siem being the customary head or rulership though appointed by the Executive Committee, suit filed against the Siem is against the person holding the office. It may be stated here that we are not expressing our opinion as to the question whether the Siem of Mylliem may sue or be sued by the name of the Siem of Mylliem". 14. For the reasons stated, we are of the opinion that, by reason of the appointment made under the Act? the Siem does not loss his character of a tribal, 15. In NCH District Council (1973) ALR 312 (supra), this Court observed: "That apart, a District Council is formed under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, it becomes a body corporate and sheds its character of being composed of only Scheduled Tribes people and, therefore, it cannot be regarded as Scheduled Tribes people". There is no provision in the Act that the Chiefship is a body corporate. For these reasons the decision in NCH District Council (supra) is distinguishable. 16. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that, in the centext of the present case, the ''Siem of Mylliem" is to be regarded as tribal. There is no provision in the Act that the Chiefship is a body corporate. For these reasons the decision in NCH District Council (supra) is distinguishable. 16. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that, in the centext of the present case, the ''Siem of Mylliem" is to be regarded as tribal. We answer the question accordingly Let this matter be placed before the next available Single Bench for disposal of the petition. 17. Before parting with the case, we express our gratefulness to the learned Advocate Ganeral, Meghalaya for his valuable assistance to the Court. H.K.Sema, J.-I agree.