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. 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 direct