JUDGMENT : Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. 1. These two appeals question the correctness of the judgment dated 31st October, 2018 in C.W.J.C. No. 17302 of 2018 where a challenge had been raised to the results of the main examinations conducted by the Bihar Police Subordinate Service Commission for the post of Police Sub Inspectors for which there were 1717 vacancies available. The Advertisement No. 01 of 2017 dated 16.09.2017 invited applications from the eligible candidates. An approximate amount of 4,28,200 candidates applied against the said advertisement and after the preliminary written test, about 29,359 candidates qualified for appearing in the main written examinations, out of whom about 10161 candidates qualified for appearing in the Physical Evaluation Test (PET). It is at this stage of the declaration of results of the final written examination that the writ petition giving rise to these appeals was filed alleging irregularities in the examination, contending that results have not been published category-wise nor the minimum cut off marks in the respective categories have been mentioned. The reservation for women has not been correctly applied and there is a serious discrepancy in the figures relating to the women candidates, as is evident from the results declared by the Commission. 2. The learned Single Judge found favour with the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent-petitioners and held that in order to ensure a fair procedure in the examination, the question papers and model answers should be uploaded for the purpose of giving an opportunity to the candidates to raise objections. Issues were also raised with regard to the preliminary test as well and about the non-supply of the copies of the OMR sheets, as such, the examinations were vitiated. The learned Single Judge then formulated the questions to be answered in Paragraph 24 of the impugned judgment. 3. On the issue of reservation being provided to females in the respective categories, the learned Single Judge in Paragraph 27 proceeded to observe as follows:- "27. This Court, at this stage, is not deciding the veracity of the break up of different reserved categories females and does not intend to enter into the jugglery dates of different categories of female candidates in the respective category, will be decided after the final selection. This Court, at this stage, is not deciding the veracity of the break up of different reserved categories females and does not intend to enter into the jugglery dates of different categories of female candidates in the respective category, will be decided after the final selection. If this Court interferes in the matter at this stage, in such circumstance, it will create stumbling block in finalization of the result, inasmuch as finality of the selection will not be materialized in near future." 4. The Court, however, went on to explain in Paragraphs 39, 40 and 41 as to how the reservation has to be implemented and also found reservation applied by the Commission in the preparation of results to be vertical instead of horizontal. In Paragraph 44 the Court ruled as follows:- "44. Learned counsel for the Commission has submitted that they are applying the horizontal reservation as per the guidelines by way of letter containing memo no. 2342 dated 15.02.2016 has been framed in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court giving guidelines in what manner the horizontal reservation can be acted upon. So, this Court is of the view that the plea of the Commission that those who have been selected on merit are outside from 35% horizontal reservation, is completely illegal, is itself shows that it is nothing but vertical reservation, which is not permissible in law as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of judgments as it cut across the vertical reservation meant for different categories is called interlocking reservation, so this Court directs that in the event of final selection the principle as stated herein-above should be applied in the matter of horizontal reservation." 5. The learned Single Judge then relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Nafiz Nawaz Khan and another Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in, (2016) 1 PLJR 667 to contend that the directions in the said case have not been complied with by the Board, which would have been an ideal process to evaluate the answer-sheets for which it is desirable that the questions and model answers should be made available on the website for inviting objections from the examinees. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that this practice was being followed and that the direction given in the case of Md. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that this practice was being followed and that the direction given in the case of Md. Nafiz Nawaz Khan (supra) was a general direction which was also applicable to the Commission. The learned Single Judge further placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Richal Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission reported in, (2018) 8 SCC 81 and then in Paragraph 48 proceeded to give the following directions:- "48. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment, this Court is giving following directions:- (i) that while making selection especially for the female candidates while applying horizontal reservation the procedure and the manner as has been stated hereinabove and which has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court should be followed in true letter and spirit. (ii) let the Commission upload the question and model answer, invite objection from the candidates, on receipt of the same, the expert Committee should look into the question paper and model answer and will be modulated in terms of the opinion of the expert Committee. (iii) for fairness and transparency, if any candidate apply for the carbon copy of OMR sheet of the mains examination under Right to Information Act for the purposes of knowing the number awarded to him/her, in such circumstance, the same should be supplied to him/her. (iv) The cut-off marks of different categories should also be uploaded in the official website of the Commission. It is clarified that this order is only confined to the mains examination. The aforesaid directions, will not be applicable to the preliminary examination." 6. After having given the aforesaid directions, the learned Single Judge has also observed that these directions will not apply for the preliminary examination. 7. The aforesaid exception carved out only for the main examinations, and the direction not being applied to preliminary examination, appears to have been issued as a challenge to the preliminary examinations had been separately made in C.W.J.C. Nos. 6565 of 2018, 6101 of 2018 and 6057 of 2018 that are still pending consideration wherein the prayer for an interim order was not considered, and was deferred with an observation that if the petitioners therein so desire they may approach the Apex Court for any appropriate orders, as monitoring of such selections and appointments in the Police Department is being conducted by the Apex Court in the case of Manish Kumar Vs. Union of India and others [Writ Petition (C) No. 183 of 2013]. This refusal to pass an interim order in the cases relating to preliminary examinations led to the filing of Civil Appeal No. 10242 of 2018 [Sanjeet Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.] that was allowed by the Supreme Court on 5th October, 2018. The Apex Court set aside the order dated 26.06.2018 and requested the High Court to decide the matter on merits. 8. The learned Single Judge, therefore, appears to have left the matter pertaining to the preliminary examinations to be dealt with separately, even though the same ought to have been decided keeping in view the observations made by the Apex Court. 9. It is in this background that the Commission as well as the candidates who were successful in the written examinations and who have been allowed to appear in the Physical Efficiency Test have filed the two appeals questioning the correctness of the impugned judgment. 10. We may put on record that L.P.A. No. 233 of 2019 filed by the successful candidates has been entertained after granting them leave to appeal as they were not parties to the writ petition in which the judgment has been delivered. 11. We had commenced the hearing of this matter on 15th February, 2019 when we had passed the following order:- "Re: I.A. No. 5 of 2019 in L.P.A. No. 1648 of 2018 Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the applicants, it appears that the applicants claimed themselves to be the candidates who have appeared in the main examinations and have also appeared in the physical efficiency test, as such, they are likely to be adversely affected or otherwise in the event any directions are given or any judgment is delivered in this matter. We are satisfied that they are proper and necessary party and, therefore, are entitled to intervene in this special appeal. I.A. No. 5 of 2019 is accordingly allowed. Re: I.A. No. 1 of 2019 in L.P.A. No. 233 of 2019 Heard Shri P.K. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants. We find that a ground for leave to appeal has been made out. I.A. No. 1 of 2019 is accordingly allowed and the appeal shall be treated to be competent. Re: L.P.A. No. 1648 of 2018, L.P.A. No. 233 of 2019 and C.W.J.C. No. 18539 of 2018. We find that a ground for leave to appeal has been made out. I.A. No. 1 of 2019 is accordingly allowed and the appeal shall be treated to be competent. Re: L.P.A. No. 1648 of 2018, L.P.A. No. 233 of 2019 and C.W.J.C. No. 18539 of 2018. The appeals arise out of the judgment dated 31st October, 2018 in C.W.J.C. No. 17302 of 2018 relating to the selection and recruitment of Police Sub Inspectors in the State of Bihar against Advertisement No. 1/2017 dated 16.09.2017. The preliminary test was held in two phases, the first on 11th March, 2018 and the second on 15th March, 2018. It appears that in relation to the preliminary examinations itself certain writ petitions were filed before this Court on 5th of April, 2018. A learned Single Judge of this Court passed the following order on 26th June, 2018 in C.W.J.C. Nos. 6057 of 2018, 6101 of 2018 and 6565 of 2018: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Bihar Public Service Commission. The present matters relate to appointment of Police Inspectors, for that an advertisement was published and date was fixed for the preliminary written examination. It appears from the record that the question papers surfaced on the 'facebook' of two persons and that led to filing of three criminal cases before three different police stations, namely, Ara, Biharsharif and Gaya. The result of preliminary written examination has been published. The petitioners are mixed class, certain persons have been selected and certain persons have not been selected and they have joined together challenging the manner the examination has been conducted. The process of selection for the appointment on the post of Police Inspectors has started on account of direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 183 of 2013 and the schedule date has been fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for conducting the selection process of Police Inspectors. This Court is of the view that the entire selection is under the monitoring of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed the schedule date for conducting the examination and completion of the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that they will bring these facts with regard to manner the examination has been conducted to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that they will bring these facts with regard to manner the examination has been conducted to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As per them, it is not a fair and transparent selection process has been adopted, which has been refuted by learned counsel for the Commission, making submission that these are the stray cases and there is no any complaint that mass irregularity has been committed. This Court is not deciding the issue on merit at this stage. Let these cases be listed after three weeks under the same heading at the top of the list. In the meantime, the petitioners, if so desire, may approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court and take a suitable order from there." The results of the preliminary test were declared on 5th of July, 2018 and 29359 candidates are stated to have qualified in the said preliminary test. The main examinations were held on 22nd July, 2018 and on 5th of August, 2018 10161 candidates are stated to have cleared the said examinations being eligible for appearing in the physical test. In between it appears that in the writ petitions where the order was passed, as extracted hereinabove, one of them Sanjeet Kumar in C.W.J.C. No. 6565 of 2018 approached the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 10242 of 2018 that was allowed and the High Court was requested to decide the said case on merits. It appears that the said petitions remained pending and after the declaration of the results of the main examination on 5th August, 2018, the writ petition giving rise to the present appeal, namely, C.W.J.C. No. 17302 of 2018 came to be filed on 24th August, 2018. Between 18th to 20th of September, 2018 the Physical Test was held. The writ petition giving rise to the present appeal was finally heard and judgment was reserved on 24th of September, 2018. In between, the order of the Supreme Court dated 5th October, 2018 intervened in the case of Sanjeet Kumar (supra). The Court does not find either the proceedings of the said writ petition having been connected with the writ petition in which the present appeal has been filed, nor the same appears to have been brought to the notice of the Court. The Court does not find either the proceedings of the said writ petition having been connected with the writ petition in which the present appeal has been filed, nor the same appears to have been brought to the notice of the Court. The said writ petitions were taken up on 4th of December, 2018 and the learned Single Judge directed the State to inform about the stage and status of investigation in respect of the F.I.R.s that had been filed relating to the allegations about the preliminary examinations. What we find from the impugned judgment is that the learned Single Judge himself has recorded a categorical finding that the directions issued by him will be only in relation to the main examinations and not the preliminary examinations. It is, therefore, evident that the preliminary examinations came to be challenged by a different set of persons who had not succeeded in the preliminary test, whereas the writ petition giving rise to the present appeal was filed by unsuccessful candidates who could not clear the main examinations. Consequently, both the matters relate to the same recruitment process, but in the instant case, the respondent petitioners have not questioned the preliminary exams or the correctness of the observations made by the learned Single Judge in relation to the preliminary examinations. We find from the impugned judgment that the amended provisions of Bihar Police Manual, 1978 indicate that the candidates shall abide by the directions and conditions contained in the advertisement. None of the terms and conditions or the advertisement provide for uploading of model key answers and question papers or for giving an opportunity of inviting objections in relation to either the preliminary examination or main examination. It is, therefore, the contention of the learned Advocate General that in the absence of any such provision there was no infirmity in the examination process and accordingly no directions could have been given by the learned Single Judge to that effect. It is also to be noted that no infirmity in the main examinations or any such discrepancy has been pointed out so as to question the fairness of the examinations. No challenge was raised to the advertisement or the procedure of examinations prior to its holding. It is also to be noted that no infirmity in the main examinations or any such discrepancy has been pointed out so as to question the fairness of the examinations. No challenge was raised to the advertisement or the procedure of examinations prior to its holding. The learned Single Judge in Paragraph 24 of the judgment has framed four questions and the incongruity noted is that there were lesser number of female candidates successful in the preliminary examinations as compared to the ratio of the female candidates who have been selected after the results of the main examination. The third issue with regard to horizontal reservation in favour of females was taken up by the learned Single Judge in Paragraphs 27 and 28, but in spite of the said observations the learned Single Judge has proceeded to comment upon and issued directions with regard to reservation in favour of women as well. The learned Single Judge has also in Paragraph 38 of the judgment referred to about the manner in which examinations should be conducted. For this, the learned Single Judge has relied on the Division Bench judgment in the case of Md. Nafiz Nawaz Khan and another Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in, (2016) 1 PLJR 667 , Paragraphs 39 and 40. It is the contention of the learned Advocate General that without recording any finding as to how the main examinations were held unfairly the directions have been given which has now resulted in a total forestalling of the declaration of results. Shri Chakrapani, learned counsel for the respondent petitioners commenced his arguments by placing before the Court the ratio of the Division Bench judgment in the case of Md. Nafiz Nawaz Khan (supra) and has urged that the Commission was also bound by the said directions. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate General for the appellant Commission and Shri P.K. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in L.P.A. No. 233 of 2019. Shri Chakrapani, learned counsel has advanced his submissions on behalf of the respondent petitioners. The arguments could not conclude today. Put up on 18th February, 2019." 12. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate General for the appellant Commission and Shri P.K. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in L.P.A. No. 233 of 2019. Shri Chakrapani, learned counsel has advanced his submissions on behalf of the respondent petitioners. The arguments could not conclude today. Put up on 18th February, 2019." 12. Shri Lalit Kishore, learned Senior Counsel and Advocate General has led the arguments on behalf of the Commission and Shri P.K. Shahi has advanced his submissions in the connected L.P.A. No. 233 of 2019 on behalf of the candidates who were successful in the written examinations. 13. It is the contention of the learned Advocate General that firstly the respondent-petitioners had no locus to question the process of examination once they had already appeared in the examinations without any demur. The argument of adopting a fair procedure by uploading the questions and the model answers cannot be raised for which the respondent-petitioners ought to have questioned the same at the time of the advertisement itself. Not only this, the Bihar Police Manual, 1978 underwent an amendment amending the rules contained therein which categorically provides that the candidates shall abide by the directions and conditions contained in the advertisement. The respondent-petitioners were successful in the preliminary examinations and they never challenged either the terms of the advertisement or the aforesaid condition contained in the Bihar Police Manual nor did they challenge any provision of the advertisement. They did not even question the omission of any such procedure as being violative of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The same was not made an issue of fairness prior to the holding of the written examinations. It is only after the written examinations were held and the respondent-petitioners were declared unsuccessful that they have raised this issue for the first time which cannot be permitted. Reliance has been placed on the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar and another Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in, (2017) 4 SCC 357 and the judgment in the case of Manish Kumar Shahi Vs. The State of Bihar and others reported in, (2010) 12 SCC 576 . 14. Reliance has been placed on the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar and another Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in, (2017) 4 SCC 357 and the judgment in the case of Manish Kumar Shahi Vs. The State of Bihar and others reported in, (2010) 12 SCC 576 . 14. The second ground raised by the learned Advocate General and by Shri Shahi is that no infirmity has been found by the learned Single Judge in holding of the examinations and the principle of fairness has been introduced on the basis of a mere apprehension. No foundational facts were pleaded in the writ petition to demonstrate even a single irregularity in holding of the examinations by the Commission. The aforesaid argument is sought to be supplemented by taking the Court through the pleadings in this regard which has also been noted by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has not given any finding on this issue according to the contention raised by the learned counsel. 15. The third ground of challenge is that no mala fides have been alleged in the holding of the examination or against the examining body or its officers. 16. The issue of reservation has been correctly dealt with, inasmuch as, the circular of the Government dated 15th February, 2016 does not suffer from any infirmity and a categorical statement has been made by the learned Advocate General that horizontal reservation will be applied only to fulfil the quota that is meant for women and which shall not exceed the same in any manner. 17. Learned counsel then contended that the judgment is incongruous, inasmuch as, once the learned Single Judge had found it not necessary to enter into the issue of reservation, then there was no necessity of recording a finding in relation to reservation being applied vertically instead of horizontally. This finding being erroneous and against record, it is also urged that this was premature inasmuch as the applicability of horizontal reservation would be finalized after the selections are concluded. It is also contended that the allegations about the figures having been wrongly predicted vis-a-vis the number of women candidates successful in the preliminary examinations being less than the number who had succeeded in the main examination is an erroneous comparison for which there is no logic. 18. It is also contended that the allegations about the figures having been wrongly predicted vis-a-vis the number of women candidates successful in the preliminary examinations being less than the number who had succeeded in the main examination is an erroneous comparison for which there is no logic. 18. It is also urged on their behalf that even if the learned Single Judge wanted to proceed to hear the matter, the issue of preliminary examination about which notice had already been taken by the Apex Court and by the learned Single Judge himself ought to have been decided simultaneously. Instead, the learned Single Judge in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment has observed that the findings recorded in the judgment would not apply in relation to the preliminary examinations. 19. Replying to the contentions on behalf of the respondent-petitioners, Shri Chakrapani and the other learned counsel appearing along with him have urged that irregularities were committed at three centres, one in the district of Ara, the other at Gaya and the third at Biharsharif (Nalanda). Three First Information Reports were lodged which categorically indicate the irregularities crept into the examination, namely, the leakage of the papers and, therefore, the examinations were unfair. 20. It is to be noted that the said allegations were with regard to preliminary examinations and copies of the First Information Reports have been placed before the Court. Two of the First Information Reports had been lodged on behalf of the Commission itself on coming to know of the question paper becoming viral on the social media. This happened after some students had taken a photograph of the question paper after having entered the examination hall and then made it viral. The other First Information Report which was lodged at Ara was lodged by the Centre Superintendent levelling the same allegations. It is stated that the charge-sheets have been filed in the said cases against those students who had violated the examination norms. This was, therefore, not a question of paper leak before the examinations or on account of any lapses on the part of the appellant Commission. These were stray and individual cases of mischief by individual students who were guilty of unfair practice during examination. Thus, the aforesaid lodging of the First Information Reports does not in any way reflect any unfairness in the conduct of examinations by the Commission. 21. These were stray and individual cases of mischief by individual students who were guilty of unfair practice during examination. Thus, the aforesaid lodging of the First Information Reports does not in any way reflect any unfairness in the conduct of examinations by the Commission. 21. Shri Chakrapani has urged by inviting the attention of the Court to Page 47 of the writ petition and comparing it with the figures relating to the candidates selected in the female category at Page 129. On the strength of these figures, it is urged that there is another document filed by the appellant Commission as Annexure-G which is at Page 293 of the Paper Book which also reflects a different figure. 22. Apart from this, the aforesaid figures do not match the 20 times the vacancies calling of candidates after the preliminary examinations. Secondly, even after the written examinations, the requirement of calling six times the number of candidates against the vacancies has also not been followed. It is, therefore, contended that with these discrepancies in the facts and figures of the number of selected candidates in the women category, there is a clear error and the results are vitiated. 23. Shri Chakrapani, however, could not point out any allegations in the writ petition about the irregularities or any prejudice being caused to any of the candidates on account of the model key answers not being uploaded. No specifics or details at all have been provided in this regard. 24. Shri Chakrapani then urged that the learned Single Judge has in order to ensure fairness directed the preparation of results only after rectifying the said errors and after applying the reservation criteria in respect of female candidates appropriately and, therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 25. We have considered the submissions raised and we are of the opinion that the appeals deserve to be allowed on more than one grounds. On the basis of the pleadings on record, we are satisfied that there was no material to point out any illegality or irregularity or lapse in the holding of the main written examinations. If there were irregularities with regard to the preliminary examinations and the First Information Reports lodged in respect thereof, then if the learned Single Judge had any doubt, it was more appropriate to have decided the three writ petitions namely, C.W.J.C. Nos. If there were irregularities with regard to the preliminary examinations and the First Information Reports lodged in respect thereof, then if the learned Single Judge had any doubt, it was more appropriate to have decided the three writ petitions namely, C.W.J.C. Nos. 6057 of 2018, 6101 of 2018 and 6565 of 2018 simultaneously. The learned Single Judge chose to segregate the same and while delivering the impugned judgment, made an observation that this judgment shall not apply in relation to the preliminary examinations. With regard to the final written examinations, no foundational facts exist nor have they been discussed nor any finding recorded by the learned Single Judge as to how any prejudice has been caused to any of the candidates in respect of any question paper of the written examinations. Neither any allegations have been made to specify the same nor any finding has been recorded by the learned Single Judge. In such a situation, to assume the existence of any unfairness on account of not uploading of of key answers does not appear to be justified. Even otherwise, after the results are declared and the exams are over, it is always open to a candidate to clear his doubts by moving an application under the Right to Information Act in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and others Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others reported in, (2011) 8 SCC 497 for supply of the answer-books in order to raise any such grievance. Apart from this, the contention on behalf of the appellants that the respondent-petitioners cannot now question the procedure of examination also appears to be correct. It is only after the respondent-petitioners were unsuccessful in the main written examinations that they filed the writ petition. They did not raise a challenge either to the advertisement or to the holding of the examinations, presumably because, they were all successful in the preliminary examinations. It appears that had these respondent petitioners been successful in the written examinations also, they would not have challenged the procedure of examinations. They did not raise a challenge either to the advertisement or to the holding of the examinations, presumably because, they were all successful in the preliminary examinations. It appears that had these respondent petitioners been successful in the written examinations also, they would not have challenged the procedure of examinations. Thus, after having become unsuccessful, they cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the procedure of examinations on the ground of unfairness, that too even without any relevant material in respect thereof as observed above, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra) and Manish Kumar Shahi (supra). The learned Single Judge appears to have overlooked this aspect of the matter while proceeding to invoke the philosophy of fairness in the holding of examinations on the basis of the ratio of the judgments extracted in the impugned judgment. In our opinion, there was no occasion to have issued any such direction to the appellant Commission midway the selection process when there was no element of mala fide or infirmity established in holding of the main written examinations. The entire exercise is based on a mere apprehension and for introducing an element of fairness which otherwise does not appear to have been required at least on the facts of the present case. 26. There is one more aspect which has not been noticed by the learned Single Judge. The delay and postponement of the examinations unless attributable to the Commission on any valid ground should not have been encouraged in view of the clear mandate contained in the order of the Supreme Court dated 5th of May, 2017 in Writ Petition (C) No. 183 of 2013. The entire selection process had to be completed by 30th October, 2018, which now stands delayed on account of the impugned judgment. 27. Now we come to the facts and figures as pointed out in relation to the number of candidates being successful. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission categorically explains as to how the successful candidates were summoned and which does not in any way violate the terms and conditions of the advertisement of calling 20 times the number of vacancies after the preliminary examinations and six times the number of vacancies after the written examinations. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission categorically explains as to how the successful candidates were summoned and which does not in any way violate the terms and conditions of the advertisement of calling 20 times the number of vacancies after the preliminary examinations and six times the number of vacancies after the written examinations. It is also to be noted and which is also the argument of the learned Advocate General that if the target is not completed, the same is because the candidates may not be available having not secured 30 per cent marks, which is the minimum to be obtained both in the preliminary test and the final written examinations. The figures that have been reflected at Pages- 47, 129 and 293 of the Paper Book are, therefore, perfectly in consonance with the aforesaid norms fixed. The attention of the Court has been invited to the reply given to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-petitioners before the learned Single Judge. Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the said affidavits are extracted hereinunder:- "7. That with regard to statement made in paragraph 4 of the writ application, it is stated and submitted that there is nothing wrong in the result of the mains examination as claimed by the writ petitioners. In the said paragraph it has been stated by the petitioners that in preliminary examination total 149 Scheduled Caste female candidates were selected for the mains examination whereas surprisingly in the mains examination total numbers of 378 Scheduled Caste Female candidates have been shown to have passed the mains examination. In this regard it is most humbly submitted that as per the reservation policy if reserved category candidate compete on its own merit with General Category he/she shall be counted as a General Category Candidate and in this modality number of candidates are bound to vary in the result. For example from bare perusal of the preliminary examination result at page 47 of the writ application which shows the table number of candidates selected as per their category, it will be apparent that the number of vacancies in Scheduled Caste (Men/Women) category is 205 and total number of vacancy in Scheduled Caste (Women) is 95. For example from bare perusal of the preliminary examination result at page 47 of the writ application which shows the table number of candidates selected as per their category, it will be apparent that the number of vacancies in Scheduled Caste (Men/Women) category is 205 and total number of vacancy in Scheduled Caste (Women) is 95. The Commission was required to select minimum 20 times of the vacancy of the respective category and accordingly 4133 candidates were selected in Scheduled Caste (Men/Women) Category on the basis of their own merit and 149 female candidates were selected on the basis of 35% quota for Scheduled Caste (Female). This ratio is applicable to all the category in like manner. 8. That it is pertinent to state here that in General Category (Men/Women) total number of vacancy is 612 and total number of vacancy in General (Women) is 280 and minimum number of candidates required for selection was 20 times of the vacancy as stated earlier and accordingly total 12159 candidates were selected in General (Men/Women) Category on the basis of their own merit and 5779 (Female) Candidates were selected on the basis of 35% quota for General Category (Women), the said list of General Category (Men/women) and General (Female) also includes the candidates selected on the basis of their merit belonging to reserved category. 9. That similarly at page 129 of the writ application contains table showing number of candidates selected for PET as per their category in the Mains examination. The candidates for the PET were selected out of total 29359 candidates selected in Preliminary examination vacancy position remains the same but in the mains examination the Commission was required to select only 6 times of the vacancy, thus the candidates selected on the basis of their merit in Scheduled Caste (Men/Women) category is 1231 and in Scheduled Caste (Female) 378 candidates were selected on the basis of 35% quota. There is mobility of candidates in different categories and in view of reduction of ratio from 20 times to 6 times in selecting candidates from Preliminary to Mains Examination number of candidates in the respective category varied from Preliminary Examination result to Main Examination result." 28. We have carefully examined the same and the learned counsel for the respondent petitioners have been unable to dislodge the aforesaid facts. 29. We have carefully examined the same and the learned counsel for the respondent petitioners have been unable to dislodge the aforesaid facts. 29. Coming to the issue of reservation, we are satisfied that the horizontal reservation in respect of women has to be applied in order to ensure that reservation to women is given up to the extent of their quota. The learned Advocate General has made a statement as noted above that the appellant Commission and the State will be applying reservation only to the aforesaid extent and not beyond the same which is yet to be finally done as the selection process has not yet concluded. We hope and trust that the appellant Commission shall abide by the same in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in this regard as well as the relevant rules and circulars applicable to the controversy without exceeding the limits which are prescribed for women candidates. 30. We also find ourselves in agreement with the argument on behalf of the appellant that the judgment at one place did categorically indicate that the Court was not entering into the issue of horizontal reservation on account of its observation about the jugglery of figures. In such circumstances, we find no justification for the issuance of any directions in this regard. 31. There is one more issue which deserves notice and that is about applying the ratio of the judgment in the case of Md. Nafiz Nawaz Khan (supra). The general directions were issued to statutory bodies or other agencies holding tests based on multiple choice questions for the purpose of appointment to various posts under the State. It is correct that in the present case the appellants had made it categorically clear to the candidates that they will not be entitled to copies of the OMR sheets or take away any answer-sheets or copies thereof. To the contrary, the instructions clearly indicate that one copy shall be kept for record by the examining body. Thus, there was no provision of extending any such extra copies or carbon copies to the candidates of the answer-sheets and the candidates including the respondent petitioners were accordingly informed of the same. They appeared in the examinations with such full knowledge without challenging or questioning the aforesaid conditions. Thus, there was no provision of extending any such extra copies or carbon copies to the candidates of the answer-sheets and the candidates including the respondent petitioners were accordingly informed of the same. They appeared in the examinations with such full knowledge without challenging or questioning the aforesaid conditions. In this view of the matter, ratio of the Division Bench judgment as relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent-petitioners and as applied by the learned Single Judge would not be a justification for impeding the declaration of results, the proceedings whereof have already been concluded. This, as observed above, was neither founded on any specific allegation of irregularity or prejudice and even otherwise any delay in holding of the selections would have violated the order of the Apex Court dated 5th May, 2017 referred to hereinabove. 32. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find the impugned judgment dated 31st October, 2018 to be unsustainable, which is hereby set aside subject to the observations made hereinabove. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The appellants are directed to forthwith declare the results and finalize the selection process.