ORDER : Akil Kureshi, J. Petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent No. 3 - Assistant Taluka Development Officer not to permit co-opted members of the Social Justice Committee of Kheralu Taluka Panchayat to vote for the election to the Chairman of such committee. 2. The Taluka Panchayat, having been constituted through election of the members, the question of constitution of Social Justice Committee in terms of Gujarat Taluka Panchayats Social Justice Committee (Constitution and Functions), Rules, 1995 (“the said Rules” for short) came up. Rule 3 of the said Rules provides for constitution of the committee and reads as under:- “3. Constitution of Committee.- (1) Social Justice Committee of a Taluka Panchayat shall consist of not more that five members.- (2) The Panchayat shall constitute the countries from amongst its elected members of the Panchayat in the following manner.- (i) One member belonging to the Valmiki (Safai Kamdar) Community; (ii) Three members belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; (iii) One woman member from Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes; Provided that the number of members of the Panchayat elected on the seats reserved for the Valmiki Community, Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes falls short of the number of the members to be appointed on the Committee, the panchayat shall co-opt on the committee such persons from amongst Valmiki Community, Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes as are qualified to be elected as members of the Panchayat; Provided further that were a woman member as aforesaid is not available for appointment, it shall be permissible for the panchayats to co-opt a woman form amongst the women belonging to categories mentioned in clause (iii) above as are qualified to be elected as member of the panchayat. 3. Since sufficient number of members belonging to respective community to constitute the Social Justice Committee in terms of sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 3 were not available out of elected members, in terms of the first proviso to Rule 3, two members came to be co-opted. The case of the petitioner is that such co-opted members cannot be allowed to vote for election to the Chairman of the committee which is scheduled to be held today. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner agreed that there is no such express prohibition in the said Rules. The case of the petitioner is that such co-opted members cannot be allowed to vote for election to the Chairman of the committee which is scheduled to be held today. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner agreed that there is no such express prohibition in the said Rules. He, however, submitted that the purpose of constitution of the committee and its functions would be frustrated if the co-opted members are allowed to vote. We do not find any embargo in the Rules on the co-opted members casting their vote for election to the Chairman of the committee. If the co-opted members are prevented from voting at the meetings of the committee, we do not see what other functions they would perform. Surely, as members, whether co-opted or elected, there role would be in being involved in the decision making process, the functioning of the committee would be on democratic principles governed by majority, if the co-opted members are prevented from voting at different meetings, their role would be confined to being mere spectators. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that his objection is only to such co-opted members voting for the election to the Chairman. We do not see any such distinction in the Rules, where for other purpose, co-opted members could exercise vote, but not for election to the post of Chairman. 6. No decision has been cited of this Court or any other Court in support of the contention. Petition is dismissed.