SATYABRATA SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against an order dated 5th september, 1996 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in C. O. No. 13103 (W)of 1996 whereby and whereunder the said learned Judge directed that the order impugned in the writ application being dated 23-8-1996 as contained in Annexure 'f to the writ application be not given effect to. ( 2 ) BEREFT of all unnecessary details, the fact of the matter is as follows : there exists a co-operative society known as Tamluk-Ghatal Central co-operative Bank Ltd. , hereinafter referred to as the said society. The said society is registered under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the said Act ). Admittedly an election of the Director was held in the year 1990. However, two directors could not be elected from Mahisadal I and II Block and Sutahat I and II Block. In that view of the matter, the Registrar of the Co-operative Society in exercise of his power conferred upon him under Rule 34 of the West Bengal Co-operative society Rules nominated the writ petitioners. However, the stay application was taken up for hearing the learned Counsel for the parties agreed that the writ application itself be heard along with appeal upon dispensing with all the requirements of the writ rules. ( 3 ) MR. Banerjee, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner/respondent has raised a short question in support of this writ petition. The learned Counsel submits that keeping in view the fact that the writ petitioners were appointed in terms of Rule 34 of the said Rules, the question of their nomination or the question of their being appointed for a period of one year does not arise. Keeping in view the terminology used therein, the learned Counsel contended, the offer of appointment must be read in the context of Rule 34 of the said Rules. ( 4 ) MR. Keeping in view the terminology used therein, the learned Counsel contended, the offer of appointment must be read in the context of Rule 34 of the said Rules. ( 4 ) MR. Banerjee, learned Counsel, has taken us through the provision of section 27 of the said Act as well as Rules 33 and 41 of the Rules for the purpose of showing that in terms of the provisions of the said Act and Rules framed thereunder the Director can be of four categories; namely, (a) elected director (b) director appointed when an election cannot be held, (c) director nominated by the State government or other authorities in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the Act and (d) co-opted Director in terms of Rule 33 of the Rules. Referring to Rule 41, mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel, submits that from a perusal thereof it would be clear that whereas the provisions have been laid down therein for removal of the elected director or nominated Director there does not exist any provision for removal of a director appointed in terms of Rule 34 of the Rules. ( 5 ) IT was therefore, submitted that the impugned order dated 23-8-1990 whereby and whereunder the petitioners were removed and the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were appointed as Directors is bad in law. ( 6 ) MR. Anupam Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank supported the contention of Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel. ( 7 ) MR. Kashi Kama Maitra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 7 submitted that in terms of Section 17 of the Bengal General Clauses act, the power to appoint would include the power of removal. In support of the aforementioned contention reliance has been placed on the case in AIR 1972 Cal 389 , AIR 1966 SC 334 and AIR 1956 SC 281. The learned Counsel contended that no steps had been taken by the Board to hold election. According to the learned counsel in view of the offer of appointment as contained in Annexure 'b' to the writ application it would appear that the maximum term of the writ petitioners being one year, they cannot claim any right to continue in the said post, inasmuch as, they had accepted the said appointment with their eyes open. According to the learned counsel in view of the offer of appointment as contained in Annexure 'b' to the writ application it would appear that the maximum term of the writ petitioners being one year, they cannot claim any right to continue in the said post, inasmuch as, they had accepted the said appointment with their eyes open. It was nexi contended that the appointment of a Director in terms of Rule 34 of the Rules is not an appointment to a post and thus the same does not create any status in favour of the appointee and there legal right has been creaied in favour of the writ petitioners. ( 8 ) MR. Maitra, lastly submitted that unless the writ petitioners questioned the vires of Rule 34 of the said Rules in view of the substantial compliance of provision thereof the writ application would not be maintainable. Reliance in this connection has been placed on the case of Karan Pal v. Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 774 . ( 9 ) MR. Bhakti Pada Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant adopted the submission of Mr. Maitra, learned Counsel. ( 10 ) THE question which, therefore, arises for our consideration in this wril application and the appeal is the interpretation of the provision of Rule 34 of the said rules. Before we embark upon the said question, it may be noticed that in terms of section 27 of the said Act the Board of Director has to be constituted for every co-operative for the purpose of managing its affairs under the bye-laws of the said society. The Board consists of 15 directors out of which 3 members are to be nominated by the State Government. ( 11 ) SUB-SECTION (2) of Section 27 of the Act states that the State Government or any authority specified by it in this behalf may nominate on the Board one or more persons under Section 33. ( 12 ) THE State in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 147 of the said Act made Rules known as West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 1987. Rules 34 and 41 which are material for the purpose of disposal of the writ application read thus:"34. ( 12 ) THE State in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 147 of the said Act made Rules known as West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 1987. Rules 34 and 41 which are material for the purpose of disposal of the writ application read thus:"34. Filling up of vacancy in the board where requisite number of directors cannot be elected due to disqualification or otherwise it at the annual general meeting of a co-operative society requisite number of directors cannot be elected as required under the bye-laws due to disqualification, non-receipt of requisite number of nomination papers or any other reason, the vacancy shall be filled up by appointment by the Registrar to complete the board. The directors so appointed shall continue till fresh election which shall ordinarily be held within one year from the date of appointment by the Registrar. ""41. Removal and recall of a member of a board and an office-bearer. ' (l) (a)An elected member of aboard may be removed from the office by a general meeting with due agendum. (b) A nominated member in the board may be recalled by the authority nominating him. Explanation. The word "nominated" shall include. . . . . . . . . . . directors coming within the ambit. ,. . . . . . . . of sub-section (3) of Section 27. (2) AH office-bearer may be removed from office by resolution of the board at a meeting specially convened for the purpose : provided that a resolution for removing the Chairman appointed by the state Government shall not be moved except with the prior approval of the State government. " ( 13 ) RULE 34, thus, provides for an appointment by the Registrar to complete the board if at the annual general meeting of a co-operative society requisite number of directors cannot be elected as required under the bye-laws due to the reasons mentioned therein. Such appointment shall continue till fresh election and such election is ordinarily to be held within one year from the date of appointment by the registrar. ( 14 ) RULE 33 on the other hand provides for filing up of casual vacancy. Such appointment shall continue till fresh election and such election is ordinarily to be held within one year from the date of appointment by the registrar. ( 14 ) RULE 33 on the other hand provides for filing up of casual vacancy. Such casual vacancy may be filled up by co-option by the remaining directors within one month from the date of such vacancy and if they fail to do so, the vacancy shall be filed up by appointment by the Registrar and the director so co-opted or appointed shall retire at the annual general meeting where election is to be held next. ( 15 ) RULE 41 provides for removal and recall of a member of a board and an office-bearer. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 41 provides for removal of an elected member of a board from the office by a general meeting with due agendum. Clause (b) of Rule 41 (1) provides that a nominated member in the board may be recalled by the authority nominating him. The explanation appended to the said provision states that the word "nominated" shall be include the directors coming within the ambit of sub-section (3) of Section 27. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 41 on the other hand provides that an office-bearer may be removed from the office by a resolution of the board at a meeting specially covered for the purpose. ( 16 ) THE director has no direct role to play in the management of the affairs but the Director along with other members of the Board of Directors has a responsibility to manage the affairs of the board in terms of the provision of Section 27 of the Act. ( 17 ) IT is true as has been submitted by Mr. Maitra, learned Counsel, that the offer of appointment dated 2nd December, 1990 states that such appointment shall be for a period of one year from the date of the order or holding of the next General meeting whichever occurs earlier. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that as the registrar exercised his power under Rule 34 of the rules he was bound in, make appointment only in terms thereof, it is now well-settled principle of law that when a statutory authority exercises his power he must do so within the four corners of the statute. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that as the registrar exercised his power under Rule 34 of the rules he was bound in, make appointment only in terms thereof, it is now well-settled principle of law that when a statutory authority exercises his power he must do so within the four corners of the statute. Any deviation or departure from the statutory obligation will render the act of such authority as invalid. In terms of Rule 34 of the said Rules, therefore, the registrar can only appoint such director in view of the vacancy which could not be filled up owing to the reasons stated in the first part thereof. Such appointment shall continue till a fresh election is held. The word "ordinarily" after the worked "be held" within 1 year clearly postulates that the same is directory in nature and not mandatory. Power of removal must also be conferred by a statute. If no power of removal exists, the question of removal of such person does not arise. ( 18 ) SO far as the submission of Mr. Maitra, learned Counsel, as regards the provisions of Section 17 of the Bengal General Clauses Act is concerned, from a perusal thereof would show that the same applies, where; (a) a power of appointment conferred under the Acl (b) unless a different intention appears. If the said provision is compared with the provision of Section 16 of the General Clauses Act it will appear that in terms thereof the appoint ment could be made not only by arty Central Act but also by any Regulations Section 16 of the General Clauses Act this embraces within its fold the power of a person to appoint both under the Central Act or Regulation but the said Act embraces within its fold only when an appointment is made under the Bengal Act or the West Bengal Act. An appointment made under Rule, therefore, does not come within the purview of the said provision. Moreover, keeping in view the provision of the Act as well as the Rule framed thereunder it must be held that as the said rules do not contain any provision for removal of a director appointed in terms of Rule 34, a different intention appears, inasmuch as, such a provision has specifically been made in respect of the nominated and elected directors. Had the intention of the rule making authority been that a director appointed in terms of Rule 34 can also be removed there absolutely no reason as to any such a provision were not inserted. It may be true that the petitioners were appointed for a period of one year but as such an appointment has been made in terms of Rule 34 of the said Rules, the offer of appointment has to be read keeping in view the provision of law. When there exists a conflict between the letter of appointment and the Rule, the later shall prevail in view of the fact that the power of Registrar to make such appointment in under the Rule and thus he cannot make an appointment which would be contrary to or inconsistent therewith. At the time of appointment the writ petitioners may not have any legal right but once such appointment is made, they have acquired a right to continue in the said posts till the general election is held. We may notice that even an election is not held within the period of one year, the Registrar as well as the State government has the power to direct holding of election within the prescribed period. In a given case even the entire Board of Directors may be dissolved and an Administrator may be appointed. ( 19 ) FURTHERMORE, from the impugned order dated 23-8-19% as contained in annexure 'f' to the writ application it does not appear that any reason has been assigned in support thereof. There is no allegation as against the writ petitioners. The appeared to have been removed only upon misconception of law and as such the equity does not come in our way to grant proper relief. ( 20 ) IN the case of Karam Pal v Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 774 , upon which strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Maitra, learned Counsel, the Apex Court held that in the absence of challenge to the Rules and the Regulations resultant situations flowing from compliance of the same are not open to attack. ( 20 ) IN the case of Karam Pal v Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 774 , upon which strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Maitra, learned Counsel, the Apex Court held that in the absence of challenge to the Rules and the Regulations resultant situations flowing from compliance of the same are not open to attack. ( 21 ) IT is true that if there has been a substantial compliance of the rules, in absence of challenge to the rules, the compliance thereof may not be open to attack but in the instant case evidently the action on the part of the Registrar is contrary to rule 34 of the said rules and thus it cannot be said that there has been either compliance or substantial compliance thereof. ( 22 ) BEFORE parting with the case however we may observe that the Registrar shall see to it that the election be held on 1st December, 1996 as on that date the annual General Meeting has been fixed to be held. If no election takes place on that date it would be open to the Registrar or the State Government to lake such action in the matter. ( 23 ) WE may further observe that while considering the matter we have not taken into consideration the other allegations made in the writ application, ( 24 ) FOR the aforementioned reasons, we allow the writ application and dismissed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 23. 8. 1996 as contained in annexure 'f' to the writ application. ( 25 ) LET an appropriate writ issue. ( 26 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. Satya Narayan Chakrabarty, J. ( 27 ) I agree. Petition allowed.