JUDGMENT 1. - Heard on the question of admission. 1. Impugned order, passed by learned Single Judge in Respondent No.1s WP 8829/2007 decided on 25.02.2009, has been perused by us. 2. After having critically gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, even though, prima facie, we find great merit and substance in the arguments so advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant - Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations, which is the apex body for Class XII Examination. 3. We have been given to understand that on the strength of the interim order passed in favour of respondent No.1 and extended from time to time, initially she was granted permission to appear in Class XI; after appearance, further direction was given for declaration of her result. Since she successfully completed her XI Class, obviously she moved again to the learned Single Judge for granting her permission for admission in Class XII; that was also granted by the interim order passed by this Court. That was not the end of the matter. Once the time for appearing in the XII class Exam gone, she moved again for grant of interim stay that she should be allowed to appear in Class XII Exam which was again granted, and she has appeared in Class XII Exams, the results of which are still awaited. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that direction as contained in the order passed by learned Single Judge could not have been passed as in the qualifying exam the respondent No.1 had not passed the subject for which there is any equivalent course available in the Council. It has also been contended that appellant had raised objection in this regard almost immediately as within seven days the Mayo College was informed that in absence of eligibility certificate issued by the Council she could not have been granted admission. 5. It has also been contended that appellant had raised objection in this regard almost immediately as within seven days the Mayo College was informed that in absence of eligibility certificate issued by the Council she could not have been granted admission. 5. Learned counsel for appellant contended that despite considering all these facts, learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order giving following directions contained in Para 19 of the order:- "(19) Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and (i) the respondents are directed to treat admission of the petitioner in Class XI of I.S.C. as regular admission; further declare her result of Class- XI before the commencement of Class- XII examination of ISC-2009 and to act accordingly; (ii) in case any practical examination of Class-XII has taken place after 20.02.2009 i.e. the date on which the judgment was reserved, then the same be taken afresh and further the petitioner be allowed to appear in other practical examination(s) as well as theoretical examination of the said Class. 6. It was, therefore, submitted that the very admission of respondent to Class XI was illegal and in absence of any eligibility certificate having been granted by the appellant she could not have been given any admission much-less not only admission was granted but by virtue of the interim order passed from time to time she has been able to appear even in Class XII Examination. 7. As we have said above that there appears to be merit and substance in the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for appellant, but one fact is to be kept in mind that on account of interim order passed by this Court from time to time, respondent No.1 (Petitioner of Writ Petition) has successfully appeared in Class XI Exam and then has now appeared in Class XII Exam, the result of which is still awaited. No doubt, it is true that all such interim orders are always subject to ultimate result of the writ petition, which now stands allowed in her favour. Thus, looking to the matter from all angle, we are of the opinion that some equity seeks in favour of respondent No.1 also. 8. Given serious thought to the whole matter, we are of the opinion that this writ appeal has virtually been rendered in fructuous. Thus, looking to the matter from all angle, we are of the opinion that some equity seeks in favour of respondent No.1 also. 8. Given serious thought to the whole matter, we are of the opinion that this writ appeal has virtually been rendered in fructuous. It is desirable that the result of respondent No.1 should also be declared so that she may prosecute her further course as may be advised to her, but it is necessary to safeguard the interest of the appellant by saying that any observation made by the learned Single Judge, would not be treated as a precedent in any other future case. 9. With the aforesaid observations, this appeal stands finally disposed of. 10. In view of this order, the stay application, filed with the appeal, also stands disposed of.Appeal and Stay Application disposed of as above - observations made by single judge not to operate as precedent. *******