JUDGMENT : N.M. Kasliwal, J. 1. Special leave granted. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and Judgment is reserved. 3. The matter relates to 283 candidates who had appeared in Secondary School Examination of March, 1990 conducted by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Board. The Board had found interpolation in the mark sheets of these candidates for which punishment was given of with-holding of declaration of results and debaring the candidates from appearing in the secondary examination of October, 1990 as well as March, 1991. The Bombay High Court allowed the Writ Petitions filed by 53 candidates and gave direction for declaring the results of all the 283 candidates. The Board aggrieved against the said order of the High Court has come to this Court by Special Leave Petition. The next examination now will be held in March, 1991, and many important questions have been raised during the course of arguments and it is likely to take sometime in pronouncing our judgment by detailed reasons. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Board on instructions have made a statement at the Bar and have submitted in writing also that without prejudice to their contention, the Board will permit the candidates referred to in the Notification of 31st August, 1990 to appear at the S.S.C. examination to be conducted in March, 1991 by the Board. 5. It has been further stated that without prejudice to their contentions and taking note of the special circumstances of the following candidates, the Board is prepared to declare the untampered result of the following 9 candidates: (i) Respondent No. 17 Deepa V. Agarwal (ii) Respondent No. 18 Vipul D. Pethani (iii) Respondent No. 9 Rahul Vinchhi (iv) Respondent No. 32 Gianandi Deepa (v) Respondent No. 21 Nazneen Fumiturwala (vi) Respondent No. 24 Khurana Puneet Prem (vii) Respondent No. 44 Nair Sammer Sujeet (viii) Respondent No. 5 Bina Purshottam Bhatia (ix) Respondent No. 2 Bipen Kumar B. Patel The learned counsel for the Board have also submitted that applications of the candidates willing to appear in the ensuing examination of March, 1991, will be accepted if the same are submitted on or before 13th February 1991 through Heads of their respective schools. 6. 6. In view of the above statement made by the learned counsel for the Board, we direct that the unhampered result of the above mentioned 9 candidates shall be declared by 6th February, 1991. So far as the other candidates are concerned, their results shall not be declared, but they will be permitted to appear in the ensuing examination of the Board to be held in March, 1991, in case their applications are received before 13th February, 1991, through Heads of their respective schools. In this regard the Board shall inform all the concerned schools and will also give due publicity in the two local newspapers within 3 days. The Board is further directed to consider the cases of such candidates out of 283 which are similar to the cases of aforementioned candidates other than Respondent No. 17, Deepa V. Agarwal and in their cases also the untampered result shall be declared on or before 6th February, 1991. 7. The Judgment giving detailed reasons shall follow. The above order has been passed looking to the peculiar circumstances of this case and shall not be treated as a precedent for other cases.