JUDGMENT : D.P.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. The Petitioner was a member of the Centralised Service in Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Centralised Services. He was governed by the U.P. Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Societies Centralised Service Rule, 1976, framed u/s 122-A of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act. Rule 29 prescribes the age of superannuation as 58 years and the same also provides that a person can be retired at any time after attaining the age of 50 years in public interest. Regulations were framed under Rule 30, known as U.P. Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Centralised Service Regulations, 1978, and Regulation 27 also provides for retirement. Rule 29 and Regulation 27 do not provide that after attaining the age of superannuation the services of a member of the Centralised Services can be extended. 2. The Petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation retired but he moved for his extension up to the age of 60 years. No extension was granted by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society. Then he approached this Court by means of writ No. 7253 of 1990 making a grievance that his representation was not decided. This Court directed for deciding the representation. After the orders of this Court, the Deputy Registrar vide orders dated 13-2-1991 granted extension to the Petitioner up to 30-6-1991. 3. Subsequently it came to the notice of the Deputy Registrar that, under Rule 29 of the Rules, there was no provision for granting extension and accordingly he cancelled the order granting the extension on 24-4-1991. This order of the Deputy Registrar is challenged by means of the present writ petition. 4. Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri D.P. Singh, who has filed his memo of appearance for Respondent No. 1. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not been able to point out any provision either in the Rules of the Regulations empowering the Deputy Registrar to grant extension beyond the age of superannuation. In the absence of the provisions, the grant of extension was without jurisdiction. 6. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not been able to point out any provision either in the Rules of the Regulations empowering the Deputy Registrar to grant extension beyond the age of superannuation. In the absence of the provisions, the grant of extension was without jurisdiction. 6. However, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Rules and the Regulations do not make any prohibition in the matter and, therefore, what is not prohibited, is permitted and, in this connection, he has relied upon a passage quoted in paragraph 6 of a decision in Kallu v. State of U.P. 1979 ALJ 1113, which is as under: ...I take it as an undoubted principle of law that everything is to be taken as permissible unless there is some prohibition against it. The principle is of such a comprehensive nature that it applies equally to substantive and adjective law and has been recognised as one of the fundamental principles of interpreting statutes. The aforesaid paragraph is extracted from a Full Bench decision in the case of Muhammad Sulaiman Khan v. Muhammad Yar Khan ILR (1989) All 267 (FB) and with the observation by the learned single Judge of the Full Bench, the other two learned Judges of that Bench did not agree. 7. It cannot be said that if a statute has provided for a right, that right can be granted to a person beyond what is provided by the statute. The above observation is not attracted in the present case. 8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner secondly submitted that the Deputy Registrar did not give any opportunity before passing the order as the life of the order of extension was up to 30-6-1991. The order was initially void when passed as the Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction to grant any extension in the case of a member of the Centralised Service. 9. I am not inclined to interfere. 10. The petition is accordingly dismissed.