ORDER The appellant-petitioner was compulsorily retired by the Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank through its Administrator. The appellant challenged the said order in a writ petition (CWJC No. 1667/2003) which was dismissed by the learned single judge by an order dated 2.8.2004. Being aggrieved by the said order the present appeal has been filed. 2. The appellant challenged the order of his dismissal on the ground that he cannot be compulsorily retired under rule 74(b) (ii) of the Bihar Service Code as the same is not applicable in the case of the employees of the aforesaid Bank. In this connection, he draws our attention to an order passed by the learned single judge of the Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, which has been upheld in the letters patent appeal and thereafter a Special Leave Petition against that order has been dismissed by the Supreme Court. 3. Admitted fact is that the Rules have been framed by the Bank, Rule 232 and 237 are relevant for the matter, which read thus: "232-Any Bank employee who has completed 21 years of duty and 25 years of total service calculated from the day his first appointment to retire from the Bank's service if it considered that the efficiency or conduct of the employee is not such as to justify his retention in service. Where any Bank employee is so required to retire, no claim to any special compensation shall be entertained." "237- The issue not covered in this service rule framed hereunder, shall be governed by the provisions of the Bihar Service Code and other relevant rules of the State Government." 4. The conjoint reading of the aforesaid two rules show that there is specific provision of compulsory retirement and in absence of relevant Rules the provision of the Bihar Service Code may be adopted by virtue of the provision contained under Rule 237. 5. No doubt the authority while compulsorily retiring the appellant has mentioned the provision of the Bihar Service Code and ignored the mentioning of rule 232 which specially deals with the case but that does not make any difference in the eye of law. The settled law is that if an authority has a source of power then only because of mentioning a wrong provision the source of power is not ousted. The settled law is that if an authority has a source of power then only because of mentioning a wrong provision the source of power is not ousted. In other words, if an authority has power to pass an order then an order passed by him cannot be invalidated only on the ground of mentioning a wrong provision. 6. The judgment of the Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi which has been relied upon by the counsel for the appellant is per incurium as rule 232 was not brought to the notice of the court when it held that rule 74 (b) (ii) of the Bihar Service Code has not been adopted by the Bank. 7. We are fully agreed with the view taken by the learned single judge. 8. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.