The legal judgment emphasizes several key principles regarding reservation policies, appointment rights, and the exercise of judicial powers:

1. Reservation percentages must be calculated based on the cadre strength of posts, not merely on vacancies or other measures (!) .

2. The power under constitutional provisions to pass orders for complete justice cannot override or contravene express statutory law; such powers are limited to ensuring fairness within the framework of existing legal provisions (!) (!) .

3. Selected candidates do not have an indefeasible right to appointment; inclusion in provisional lists does not guarantee appointment, especially when statutory limits and reservation rules are not adhered to (!) (!) .

4. Changes or modifications to the number of vacancies or reservation allocations made before the interview or selection process are permissible if they are aimed at rectifying errors or ensuring statutory compliance, and do not constitute changing the "rules of the game" during the process (!) (!) (!) .

5. Candidates who participate in the interview process with full knowledge of revised vacancy details are estopped from challenging subsequent changes or the final selection based on those revisions (!) (!) (!) .

6. The exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution is to be done cautiously and within the limits of statutory law; it cannot be used to bypass or alter statutory reservation limits or other legal provisions (!) (!) .

7. The rectification of wrongful calculation of vacancies, absorption of diploma holders, and adjustments in category-wise reservations are lawful when done in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, and to ensure statutory compliance (!) (!) (!) (!) .

8. The filling of unfilled horizontal reservations with candidates from the respective vertical categories, according to merit and policy, is permissible and not in violation of statutory provisions (!) .

9. Non-impleading all successful candidates in writ petitions does not invalidate the proceedings if the common issues are addressed in a consolidated judgment; the finality of such judgments applies to all similarly situated parties (!) (!) .

10. The courts recognize that the principle of "changing the rules of the game" applies when eligibility criteria or selection procedures are altered after the process has commenced, but mere correction of calculation errors or reservation adjustments made in accordance with law do not constitute such a change (!) (!) .

11. The exercise of judicial discretion under constitutional powers must respect the limits of statutory law, especially concerning reservation policies, to prevent violations of legal limits and ensure fairness (!) (!) .

In summary, the judgment underscores that reservation adjustments, rectifications, and modifications made prior to or during the selection process, when aligned with statutory provisions, are lawful. The exercise of judicial powers under constitutional provisions must be exercised within the boundaries of the law, respecting reservation limits and procedural fairness, and cannot be used to override statutory rights or alter the fundamental rules governing appointments.