ORDER : (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.) 1. The Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 3548 of 2020 order dated 04.02.2021. 2. The petitioners in that case before the learned Single Judge prayed for quashing of the Advertisement No. 05/2019 contained in Annexure 4 to the writ application so far as it relates to the appointments to be made on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), limited to the extent of retrospective applicability of 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Section. The prayer is also made for quashing of the decision to conduct single selection process on the vacancies of the years 2013 and 2015 respectively. A further prayer is made for conducting selection process on the vacancies arrived in the years 2013, 2015 and 2019 separately and independently. 3. The learned Single Judge took note of the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in W.P. (S) No. 53 of 2020 as per the judgment dated 21.01.2021 and allowed the application filed by the petitioners. 4. There is no independent discussion of facts of law in the impugned judgment by the learned Single Judge. 5. It is not disputed at this stage that the State as well as the Jharkhand Public Service Commission has assailed the order dated 21.01.2021 passed in W.P. (S) No. 53 of 2010 by filing Letters Patent Appeals and the lead case being the Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission Vs. Ranjeet Kumar Sah and others registered as L.P.A. No. 82 of 2021. After considering the matter and hearing bunch of appeals, the Coordinate Bench has come to the conclusion that none of cases cited by the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein are applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the above noted cases, the Division Bench further held that rules of the game were changed once the selection process had started. Legal matrix enunciated therein is inconsequential herein in view of the fact that rules of game prior to the issuance of the advertisement No.05/2019 continued to hold dispute during the selection process and introduction of 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Section by clubbing together the existing vacancies was not a subsequent act rather it was the vacancy which was already existing prior to reorganization of the State of Jharkhand i.e., 15.02.2019 and 25.02.2019. The Division Bench further relied upon the reported cases of Jai Singh Dalal and Others Versus State of Haryana & Another, [1993 Supp. (2) SCC 600]; State of Jharkhand & Another Versus Ranjit Kumar Gupta & Others, (L.P.A. No. 614 of 2017); and Ranjan Kumar & Others Versus State of Bihar & Others, [ (2014) 16 SCC 187 ]. Based on such findings, the Division Bench have in very clear terms held that the issuance of Advertisement No.05/2019 incorporating 10% of reservation for Economically Weaker Section by the State Government cannot be said to be an arbitrary action on the part of the State. Therefore, the Division Bench held that the learned Single Judge has committed error of law in maintaining inapplicability of reservation of 10% in the Economically Weaker Section for the vacancies of the years 2013 and 2015. We are further informed that some aggrieved parties assailing the judgment passed by the Division Bench preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is registered Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.24010 of 2021 which was dismissed at the threshold as there was no merit in that appeal. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned is erroneous and the controversy has already been set at rest. In that view of the matter, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of learned Single Judge is hereby set aside. 6. All pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of. 7. Urgent copies as per Rules.