Both the judgmemts lay a precedent on fate of candidates selected or rejected on account of an error by the appointing authority with no error on part of the candidates and no fraud. In the judgments, error was in marking the answer sheets and in the querist's case, it is error in verification of documents. In my opinion, they constitute good law for the querist's case and I'd be happy to have it tested before the High Court had I been representing the querist. I'd also like to read a judgment taking a contrary opinion supported by judgments not empty oneupmanship :) I've researched as far as I want to, working pro bono :)
As for the querist, yes, having a single vacancy creates problems. From my experience, if your case is pleaded well on equity and estoppel, Court might ask the authority to see if both the candidates could be accomodated. That's not so rare before High Courts. However that's not something you can rest on and you have to contest on these two grounds with fervour!