Judgment 1. By the Court.-Heard counsels for the parties. 2. The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 as well as the State and the Advocate General appears on their behalf. 3. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 was appointed as the Chairman of the Bihar State Warehousing Corporation by notification dated 10th September 1991. Learned Advocate General does not dispute that the notification dated 10th September 1991 was issued in anticipation of the approval of the Central Warehousing Corporation as required by Sec. 20 (2) of the Warehousing Corporation Act 1962. It is also not disputed that approval was granted by the Central Warehousing Corporation on 9.12.92. We have, therefore, no manner of doubt that the term of three years for which respondent No. 1 was appointed as the Chairman of the Corporation expired on 9th September 1994. In fact the impugned notification (Annexure-1) has been issued by the State Government on 13th September 1994 which states that respondent No. 1 who is a member of Legislative Assembly has been appointed as the Chairman of the Corporation with effect from 10th September 1994, again in anticipation of the approval of the Central Warehousing Corporation, it would, therefore, be difficult for us to sustain the argument advanced by the Advocate General that the term of respondent No. 1 has not come to an end and that he is entitled to continue till the 9th December 1994. 4. Counsel for the petitioner contends that Sec. 20 (2) of the Warehousing Corporation Act 1962 provides that the appointment of the Chairman shall be made only with the previous approval of the Central Warehousing Corporation. The appointment therefore, made in anticipation of the approval of the Central Warehousing Corporation is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act. Sec. 20 (2) of the Act provides as follows: The Chairman of the Board of Directors shall be appointed by the State Government from among the Directors of the State Warehousing Corporation with the previous approval of the Central Warehousing Corporation. The section is quite clear and in so many words the requirement is not only as to the approval of the Central Warehousing Corporation but to the "previous approval" of the Central Warehousing Corporation. The section is quite clear and in so many words the requirement is not only as to the approval of the Central Warehousing Corporation but to the "previous approval" of the Central Warehousing Corporation. The words used by the Legislature can bear no other meaning than that the approval must be taken before the appointment is made. 5 Having regard to the expressed words of the statute, the respondent No. 1 cannot be permitted to Act contrary thereto. If a statute requires that a thing must be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all. If we were to uphold the submission of the Advocate General that the term of the petitioner should be reckoned from the date on which the approval was granted by the Central Warehousing Corporation namely with effect from 9.12.91, the provisions can be misused resulting in serious irregularities. An appointment may be made and the approval may be sought for much later say after two years. If approval is granted it can be contended that term of three years shall commence from the date of approval, which shall mean an effective term of five years contrary to the statute. 6. We, therefore, have no manner of doubt that the respondent No. 1 could not be appointed without the prior approval of the Central Warehousing Corporation. Admittedly the previous approval of the Central Warehousing Corporation has not been obtained. The appointment has, therefore, been made in a manner contrary to the statute. Insistence on previous approval means previous approval not subsequent approval. We, therefore, allow this writ application and quash Annexure-1. 7. This writ application is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.