In Sameer Raj @ Sameer Raj & Anr. vs. Union of India through the Secretary (School of Education and Literacy), Ministry of Human Resource Department & Ors. (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Sudhir Singh and Rajesh Kumar Verma passed an order dated February 18, 2026. It reads: "Learned counsel for the appellants seeks permission to withdraw the present appeal. 2. Permission, as prayed for, is granted. 3. The appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn." This L.P.A was filed and registered on February 12, 2026. The counsels of the petitioner were: Dr. Gopal Krishna, Priyanka Singh, Eashita Raj, Khalid Faizan Khurshid and Adarsh Singh.
The present Letters Patent Appeal was preferred against the judgment and order dated January 27, 2026 passed by Justice Harish Kumar in C.W.J.C. No. 18381 of 2025, whereby the writ petition was dismissed. The reliefs prayed by the petitioner despite admitting in the ultimate and final paragraph of the Impugned Judgement and Order that the student had already appeared in the Practical Examination of Class 10 of CBSE and also without considering that even after the disposal of SLP, material changes in circumstances and new judicial developments have occurred.
The facts of the case are that the appellant no. 1 was a minor student admitted in a CBSE-affiliated school in the year 2018 and had continuously progressed on the basis of merit up to Class-X. The appellant-student had consistently secured excellent grades in scholastic and co-scholastic areas and has already appeared in Internal, Pre-Board and Practical examinations of CBSE’s Class X examination. The difficulty arose when the CBSE online system blocked the registration of the appellant on account of an age-related software restriction, though no statutory provision prescribes such absolute bar. The appellants challenged the arbitrary denial by non-human software and sought permission to appear in AISSE 2026 by filing C.W.J.C. No. 18381 of 2025. Although the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned judgement, however in the ultimate and final paragraph-20 of the impugned judgment, the Court expressly recorded that “……….. the petitioner no. 1, who was admitted in Class IV at the age of 5 years and 3 months only and has also been allowed to appear in the Pre-Board Examination of 10th for the session 2024-25 ……….”
While dismissing the writ petition, the single Judge himself acknowledged that the claim of the appellant remained open for reconsideration as it has been concluded that “ ….. the claim of the petitioner be considered a fresh ………”. The Single Judge failed to appreciate that the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be curtailed merely on the ground that an administrative authority claims exclusive jurisdiction over a subject. Even in matters relating to education, courts are duty bound to examine whether the decision-making process is fair, reasonable, non-arbitrary and in conformity with constitutional principles. The Single Judge committed a serious error of law in holding that the respondent-CBSE is the "best judge" of considering the exceptional merit and CBSE’s decision is beyond judicial scrutiny. Such an approach is contrary to settled principles of administrative law, which mandate that no public authority can be permitted to exercise unfettered and unguided discretion immune from judicial review. He failed to consider that the respondent-CBSE has not prescribed any transparent, uniform or objective mechanism for assessing exceptional merit, nor constituted any expert committee for such purpose. In absence of such safeguards, deference to CBSE's decision amounts to approval of arbitrariness.
He also erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of finality of earlier litigation, without appreciating that the present case involved continuing violation of fundamental rights of a minor student and fresh circumstances relating to his academic progression and maturity. Having recorded in paragraph-20 of the impugned judgment that the appellant-student has outstanding performance and has suffered due to the fault of the CBSE controlled school, the Single Judge acted inconsistently and unreasonably in denying effective relief to the appellants, thereby defeating the very object of doing complete justice. The impugned judgment reflects excessive judicial restraint and misplaced deference to administrative authority, resulting in failure to balance regulatory discipline with constitutional protection of merit, equality and right to education, and is therefore bad in law and liable to be interfered with by the High Court.
The Single Judge decided the case of the Petitioners/ Appellants in a very mechanical manner without considering consequence of the last paragraph of his own judgement. He is right in appreciating the admitted position that the appellant no.1 (student) was duly admitted in class-IV (i.e. in primary class) when he was at the age of 5 years 3 months and having allowed him to continue his studies up to Class-X, but erred in rectifying the error of the respondents, who hold that the appellant no.1 was not eligible for admission in that class. He failed to appreciate that subsequent to the disposal of SLP (C) no. 8849/ 2025 a fresh and highly material judicial development has occurred on 19.08.2025 in the case of Aarav Singh vs. Union of India & ors. Writ Petition no. 13186/ 2025 decided by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in which Court, after considering expert material including IQ/ Psychometric assessment and noting the extraordinary academic performances of the student the Court adopted a just and reasonable approach to consider an exceptional case and has held that Clause 4.1 of the National Education Policy, 2020 is directory and not mandatory, and further observed that exceptionally meritorious students cannot be debarred on the basis of age-related norms; hence, the said judgment squarely supports the case of the Appellant no. 1 and constitutes a vital change in the circumstances after the dismissal of the said SLP. He failed to consider the subsequent and material development, that the appellant no. 1 was referred to IQ assessment at AIIMS, Patna (Dept. of Psychiatry/ Clinical Psychology) (one of the best institute of India) on 13.10.2025 and thereafter the scientific assessment was duly conducted and final result was recorded on 04.11.2025, wherein it has been conclusively opined that the appellant no. 1 possesses Superior Intellectual Functioning with recorded scores of IQ=127.
The Single Judge failed to consider direct the CBSE to permit the appellant no. 1 (student) to appear in AISSE 2026 on the basis of (i) his consistent outstanding academic record his IQ assessment of the level of Superior Intellectual Functioning having IQ=127, his outstanding performances in Co-Scholastic Areas, Co-Curricular and extra- Curricular activities -and he was permitted to appear and accordingly he appeared in Practical Examinations of class-X, which is part of CBSE examination.
In compliance with the directions contained in the impugned judgement, the appellants submitted a detailed representation before the respondent CBSE and also personally approached the office of CBSE at New Delhi and requested for an opportunity of personal hearing, including via virtual mode for effective consideration of their case. Despite repeated requests, the respondent-CBSE did not grant any opportunity of hearing nor fixed any date for consideration of the appellant’s representations, instead the appellants were orally informed that since their earlier representation had already been rejected by order dated 20.05.2024, the CBSE authorities were not inclined to take different view left with no alternative remedy, the appellants have been constrained to prefer the present Letters Patent Appeal.
The earlier order dated 20.05.2024 was passed in very mechanical manner, without proper application of mind and without exercising jurisdiction in accordance with law, particularly because the CBSE examines the academic performances only and not extra co-curricular activities and the CBSE’s order was passed arbitrarily, unreasonably and contrary to harass the appellants. TSingle Judge failed to appreciate the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh vs Sanjay Gulati [AIR 1983 SC 580 = 1983 SCC (3) 517], wherein it has been categorically held that when authorities themselves commit an errors by ignoring the prescribed norms, the consequences of such lapses cannot not be imposed upon deserving students. The Supreme Court also held that:-“………Those who infringe the rules must pay for their lapse and the wrong done to the deserving students who ought to have been admitted has to be rectified.”
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 27.01.2026, passed by Justice Harish Kumar in C.W.J.C. No. 18381 of 2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed, the appellants preferred the LPA on following grounds:(i) Because theSingle Judge erred in law in treating the previous litigation as an absolute bar, ignoring material changes occurred after disposal of SLP (C) no. 8849/ 2025 and also ignoring the continuing nature of violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Because the Single Judge failed to appreciate that principles of res-judicata are applied with flexibility in writ jurisdiction, particularly where the constitutional rights of a minor, exceptionally meritorious student are involved. (iii) Because the impugned judgement fails to examine whether CBSE has any objective, transparent and expert based mechanism and tool to assess the exceptional merit of the student. (iv) Because the impugned judgment is inconsistent and legally unsustainable in as much as failed to consider that the school is duly affiliated to the CBSE and for all workings of the school, related to the education, the CBSE is fully responsible. (v) Because the impugned judgement failed to consider that the appellant no. 1 (student) was admitted in class IV at the age of 5 years 3 months, and continuously studied up to class X and was also allowed to appear in examinations of Pre-Board of Class X and Practical Examination of class X (which is a part of CBSE Board Examination) and as such he cannot be restrained from appearing other papers of CBSE Class X examination, in the light of Judgement/ Order passed in Tathagat Avtar Tulsi vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and another, Writ Petition (Civil) no. 4386 of 1996,. passed by High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.
(vi) Because the impugned judgement failed to consider that the Hon’ble Patna High Court has hold in Judgement/ Order dated 23.01.2009 in Monark Monalisa and ors. vs. The State of Bihar and others, Writ Petition no. 10357/ 2008 that “This Court finds the rule, as contained in Article 291 (presently Article: 259) of the Bihar Education Code restricting the age is not an absolute rule……..” and also about letter dated 23.08.1989 of the Secretary, Dr. Brij Kishore Giri of the Bihar School Examination Board that “ …. The policy decision is in furtherance to Article 291 (presently Article: 259) of the Bihar Education Code because under no statute that has been brought in my notice, there any such mandatory restriction. The policy decision itself, thus, is discretionary, as noted above.” (vii) Because the impugned judgment fails to examine whether CBSE has any objective, transparent and expert-based mechanism to assess exceptional merit of the student as CBSE itself states that “there is no such established mechanism or scientific tool to assess and declare a candidate as prodigy or exceptionally meritorious in an academic matter” and in such situation the CBSE should rely upon the results of IQ assessment by AIIMS (one of the best institute of India) that the student possesses the “Superior Intellectual Functioning” beyond age i.e. the student is “exceptionally meritorious”, beyond age i.e. the student is child prodigy and has exceptional merit and in such situation it was just and proper to direct the CBSE to allow the student to appear in AISSE examination.
(viii) Because the Court wrongly declined to test the action of CBSE on the anvil of arbitrariness, proportionality, and reasonableness, particularly when the CBSE itself has duly accepted that “the result of the past academic performance of the petitioner perused and found that same is satisfactory”. (ix) Because denial of registration based on a non-human software-generated age restriction, without statutory backing, is per se arbitrary and unconstitutional. (x) Because the impugned order places excessive deference on administrative discretion and undermines judicial review. (xi) Because the impugned judgment is bad in fact and law and liable to be set aside.
Also read:Sameer Raj to file Letters Patent Appeal (L.P.A.) against Justice Harish Kumar's dismissal of his writ seeking direction to appear in CBSE's 10th Board Exam
CBSE fails to comply with Patna High Court's orders in Sameer Raj vs. Union of India
.jpg)
