JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the BPSC.) 2. Petitioner was an applicant for the post of Child Development Project Officer pursuant to Advertisement No. 34/2005 dated 30.4.2005, Annexure-2. Result of the said examination was published in the newspaper, Hindustan on 23.9.2007, Annexure-1, but she was not shown successful in the examination, as the caste certificate submitted by her was not accepted by the authorities. On 11.4.2008 she filed the instant writ case praying, inter alia, to direct the BPSC to accept her caste certificate and recommend her in the EBC category in the light of the order of the High Court dated 10.12.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 13222 of 2007. Annexure-17. Against the order dated 10.12.2007, Annexure-17, BPSC had preferred L.P.A. No. 35 of 2008 which was dismissed under order dated 8.2.2008/ Annexure-27. After dismissal of L.P.A. No. 35 of 2008 under order dated 8.2.2008, the caste certificate furnished by the petitioner was accepted and her name was. recommended by the BPSC for appointment on the post of Child Development Project Officer under letter No. 427 dated 21.4.2009, Annexure-23, which was addressed to the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department. In spite of recommendation dated 21.4.2009, Annexure-23, appointment letter was not issued to the petitioner. 3. This Court under orders dated 16.5.2011 noticed the aforesaid submission, including further submission that 31 persons, having lower marks than petitioner, have already been appointed on the said post in the EBC category ignoring better claim of the petitioner, directed the Principal Secretary of the Department to examine the contention of the petitioner and file supplementary affidavit enclosing the appointment letter with further direction that the matter shall be taken up for further consideration on 4.7.2011. Matter was taken up on 4.7.2011 when neither supplementary affidavit was filed nor appointment letter was produced, this Court, however, at the request of the State Counsel passed over the matter so as to enable him to inform this Court about the steps taken to comply the orders of this Court dated 16.5.2011. Even today neither supplementary affidavit has been filed nor appointment letter in the light of the recommendation of the BPSC has been issued. 4. Even today neither supplementary affidavit has been filed nor appointment letter in the light of the recommendation of the BPSC has been issued. 4. Counsel for the State submitted that as the issue of appointment letter to Prerna Kumari, one of the recommended candidate under recommendation dated 21.4.2009, Annexure-23 was sub-judice in L.P.A. No. 711 of 2011 filed against the order dated 3.3.2011 passed in the case of Prerna Kumari, bearing C..W.J.C. No. 16198 of 2007, appointment letter in the case of the petitioner was also not issued. L.P.A. No. 711 of 2011 having been dismissed under order dated 4.5.2011, Annexure-31, notification dated 25.6.2011, Annexure-33 appointing Prerna Kumari having been issued just few days earlier, this Court may grant further time to issue appointment letter to the petitioner as well. 5. I regret not to accept such sub- mission. Case of the petitioner and Prerna Kumari was recommended by the BPSC under letter No. 427 dated 21.4.2009, Annexure-23. After dismissal of L.P.A. No. 35 of 2008 under order dated 8.2.2008, Annexure-27 and receipt of the recommendation dated 21.4.2009, Annexure-23, the authorities of the Social Welfare Department were duty bound to proceed on the basis of the recommendation and to issue appointment letter in the light of the recommendation. The authorities of the Social Welfare Department had neither authority nor jurisdiction to sit over the recommendation dated 21.4.2009 which was made in the light of the requisition and the different orders of the High Court. Further, the recommendation dated 21.4.2009 was never under cloud as the same was never stayed in any of the writ petitions filed on the issue. 6. The authorities have merrily ignored the recommendation of the BPSC for over two years and thereby petitioner suffered, as during the interregnum, petitioner had no opportunity to serve for want of appointment letter. In the circumstances, I deem it expedient not only to direct the authorities of the Social Welfare Department to issue appointment letter to the petitioner in the light of the recommendation of the BPSC dated 21.4.2009, Annexure-23, but also to pay her cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs.Ten thousand) by each of the Principal Secretary, who presided over the Social Welfare Department of the State Government during the period between 21.4.2009 till the date of issue of the appointment letter. 10,000/- (Rs.Ten thousand) by each of the Principal Secretary, who presided over the Social Welfare Department of the State Government during the period between 21.4.2009 till the date of issue of the appointment letter. Appointment letter be issued as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order and the cost should also be paid to the petitioner within the same time. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.