Judgment 1. The delay in filing these three appeals is condoned. 2. In this group of three Letters Patent Appeals by evocation of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, the appellant State of Bihar has questioned the common judgment dated 17.8.2004 rendered in two writ petitions (C.W.J.C. Nos. 3220/04 and 2236/ 04) [reported in 2004(4) PLJR 136 ] and the judgment dated 29.9.2004 rendered in C.W.J.C. No. 809/04, whereby the claim propounded for consideration and appointment by the empanelled writ petitioners in the list for the post of Block Welfare Officer came to be approved by allowing ail the three writ petitions. 3. We have been addressed by the learned counsel appearing for the State Government, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and since in these three appeals a common question against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge has been placed in focus and, therefore, upon consensus the entire group is heard together and being proposed to be disposed of by this common judgment. 4. The following aspects are no longer in controversy. One that pursuant to the advertisement no. 306/99, the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) upon request of the Government after undergoing the exercise prescribed prepared a panel of select list of 113 persons for the post of Block Welfare Officers, who were declared successful and recommended by the Commission to the Government. The original writ petitioners were included in the list of 113, whose names came to be approved and recommended by the Commission. Upon bifurcation of the erstwhile undivided State of Bihar by virtue of Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, the State Government pursuant to the provision and scheme decided to appoint 2/3rd (75%) of the selectees from the said list, which rendered remaining 1/3rd (38), whose names though recommended, but could not be appointed and the original petitioners are one of those 38 persons falling in the 1/3rd quota. 5. The question, which was propounded and canvassed conjointly by the writ petitioners before the Single Judge has been as to whether the persons recommended pursuant to an advertisement issued much prior to coming into force of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 would be eligible for appointment against the vacancies, which are said to have occurred within the State of Bihar in the Cadre of the Block Welfare Officers. The learned Single Judge upon consideration of the submissions and the proposition of law propounded by this court in the judgment rendered in C.W.J.C. No. 11491 of 2001 in the case of Subhas Chandra Yadav and Ors. vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. held that the recommendation made by the Commission even prior to coming into the force of the Bihar Reorganization Act shall not be 0infructuous requiring de novo selection and the identified vacancies to be filled up on the basis of the recommendation of the Commission made earlier in the light of the vacancies that have occurred within the State of Bihar. It is also clear from the impugned judgment that the learned Single Judge has also placed reliance on the proposition and the principles of law in the case of Junoon Sangi vs. the State of Bihar and Ors. [2000(2) PLJR 577] and reached to the conclusion that the claims of the writ petitioners are justified and passed resultant directions against the authorities to consider the case of the writ petitioners as well as the interveners for their appointment on the post of Block Welfare Officer on the basis of the recommendation made by the Commission dated 8.11.2002 for filling up the vacant posts with a further direction to commence and complete the said exercise within a span of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 6. Of course, there was a serious view taken by the learned Single Judge and rightly so on finding that a false affidavit was filed contending that the cadre division of the Block Welfare Officer had not been finalised by the State Advisory Committee where decision in the matter had already been reached by the State Advisory Committee on 23.5.2005. It is stated at the bar that subsequently in a contempt proceeding pursuant to observations and directions, an affidavit was filed which is also referred in course of.hearing before us and ultimately the proceedings were directed to be dropped. This is incidentally referred to which is now material barring in these letters patent appeals. 7. It is stated at the bar that subsequently in a contempt proceeding pursuant to observations and directions, an affidavit was filed which is also referred in course of.hearing before us and ultimately the proceedings were directed to be dropped. This is incidentally referred to which is now material barring in these letters patent appeals. 7. After anxious thought having recorded the views and the ultimate conclusion recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and the celebrated doctrine and principles of service jurisprudence and the exposition of the relevant proposition in the aforesaid two decisions relied upon by the learned Single Judge coupled with the fact that an expert body, which has been constituted under the Constitutional requirement has once recommended the names after undergoing stern requisite prescribed, exercise for recruitment of the officers concerned is not fully implemented on account of intervening circumstances of bifurcation of the State into two and at the time of consideration of the merits of the writ petitioners claim there being vacancies for the same cadre more than left out selected and recommended persons 38, the exercise of the Constitutional writ jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge in giving direction to consider and appoint the remaining persons, namely, 38 who originally form part of the list of 113 selected and recommended by the Commission in the larger interest of public would not be said to be a wrongful or an exercise, requiring our interference under the provisions of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Appeal. The proposition of law in appreciation of the merits of the appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent appeal has been very well expounded that unless certain para meters are shown to the satisfaction of the court or spelt out from the record merely because a better view could have been taken would never be even the basis for interference in terms of the powers under clause 10 of the letters patent appeal, which is also not so in our opinion in these group of letters patent appeal. 8. 8. We, therefore, left with no option but to raise our hands in helplessness and to dismiss these three letters patent appeals by confirming and affirming one common judgment and separate judgment rendered in aforesaid three writ petitions by the learned Single Judge with a hope that the directions contained therein shall be followed in letter and spirit being found by us by larger public interest. 9. With the said observations, these three letters patent appeals shall stand dismissed, but without costs.