In Sameer Raj @ Sameer Raj Sinha & Anr. vs. The Union of India through the Secretary (School of Education and Literacy), Ministry of Human Resource Department, Government of India & Ors. (2026), Justice Harish Kumar of Patna High Court delivered a 11-page long judgement dated January 27, 2026. After dismissing the petition in the penultimate paragraph, in the ultimate paragraph, Justice Kumar concluded:"It is made clear that C.B.S.E., who is the best judge to see as to whether the case of the student falls under exceptional circumstances, hence the petitioner no.1, who was admitted in Class-IV at the age of 5 years and 3 months only and he had also been allowed to appear in the Pre-Board Examination of 10th for the Sessions 2024-25 and his performance is outstanding, the claim of the petitioner be considered afresh for the next academic Session in the C.B.S.E. examination, as the petitioner no.1 had made to suffer because of the fault of the school, who allowed the admission despite having minimum age for the appropriate class."
The Petitioner no. 2 is Advocate Arun Kumar Sinha, father of the Petitioner no. 1. The six other Respondents were: The State of Bihar, through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Patna, Director, Secondary Education, Education Department, Patna, Chairman, Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi, Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi, Regional Officer, Central Board of Secondary Education, Regional Office, Patna and B.D. Public School, Buddha Colony, Patna through its Director S.B. Rai.
Sameer Raj, the Petitioner no. 1 and his Petitioner 2. invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court seeking a direction upon the Central Board of Secondary Education to consider his application for registration and appearance in Class X, C.B.S.E. Board Examination, 2026 notwithstanding the shortfall of age as reflected in the C.B.S.E. online portal.
So far C.B.S.E. has refrained from should give true effect to the import of Rule 6.1(iii) of the Examination Bye-laws, 1995 (as amended up to January, 2013) by recognizing that age determination falls within State Government, which has not fixed any age restrictions.
This was the third round of litigation led by Sameer Raj, the Petitioner no.1 who was duly admitted in B.D. Public School, Buddha Colony, Patna; a school duly affiliated with CBSE on April 13, 2018 at the age of 5 years, 3 months and 25 days, in Class-IV. After having performed well in the successive classes, finally, the petitioner was promoted to Class-IX at the age of ten years and three months and was also allowed to appear in Pre-Mid Term of Class-X as well as Mid-Term and Post Mid-Term Examination of Class-X. However, despite his best efforts and persuasion made to all the authorities regarding his academic excellence and outstanding performance to Scholastic areas, when he had not been allowed to appear in the Board Examination of All India Secondary School Examination and the registration was not done, he approached the High Court through his guardian/father in 2023 seeking a direction to the respondent authorities, specially C.B.S.E. to permit the Petitioner no.1 to appear in the Board Examination of AISSE, 2025 and to direct the C.B.S.E. to allow/accept the registration of the Petitioner no.1, irrespective of his age being less than 15 years.
Patna High Court's attention was drawn towards the decision of Delhi High Court of Delhi in Central Board of Secondary Education vs. Master Tathagat Avtar Tulsi (Minor) as well as the decision rendered by Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in Aarav Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. and the decision of Patna High Court in Monark Monalisa through his father Sri Kali Prasad Pal vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Justice Kumar observed that this Court "is of the view that the minimum cut off age for getting admission and appearing in the Board examination is provided under the Code/By-laws of the C.B.S.E., but in exceptional circumstances meritorious candidate may be allowed to appear in the Board Examination, even if he/she is under age." He added: "15. The object behind prescribing the minimum age for appearing in any examination is required to ensure that the student must possess proven cognitive maturity and foundational knowledge, besides promoting fairness and consistent development align with standard educational progress. 16. The minimum age prescribed for admission in a class and appearing for an examination in no way put an embargo to pursue the education, rather the same is required for holistic development of a student keeping in mind the developmental appropriateness, academic standardization,
regulatory compliance as well as physical and social development."
In the penultimate paragraph, Justice Kumar observed: 18. The Court cannot delve into the assessment of the merit of a candidate/student, as the same is within the domain of the academician and the teaching experts. Once, the Chairman of the CBSE has come out with the cogent reasons and rejected the prayer of the petitioner no.1, this Court does not find a fresh ground to entertain the writ petition for the same cause of action. 19. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. However, no order as to cost."
A careful reading of the judgement reveals an inadvertent ambiguity between the premise, the penultimate paragraph and the ultimate paragraph of the judgement. This creates a compelling reason for filing a Letters Patent Appeal (L.P.A.).
Notably, Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo has observed: "In essence, a Letters Patent Appeal provides an internal check and balance, ensuring judicial oversight and protecting citizens rights by allowing a thorough review of a Single Judge’s decision." He has underlined:"A Letters Patent Appeal, as permitted under the Letters Patent, is normally an intra-court appeal whereunder the Letters Patent Bench, sitting as a court of Correction, corrects its own orders in exercise of the same jurisdiction as was vested in the Single Bench."
A Letters Patent is a common feature in many High Courts in India, offering an internal mechanism for reviewing decisions of a single judge. It was a remedy provided when high courts were first created in India by Letters Patent in 1865. It is the only remedy available against the decision of a single judge of the high court, otherwise the remedy would lie with the Supreme Court. The Law Commission of India in its 163rd Report states: "Quite a few of the writ petitions disposed of by single judges in various high courts involve substantial stakes and have serious consequences both for the state as well as the citizens. Very often, the writ petition is an original proceedings. At any rate, it is an original proceeding in a civil court i.e. high court. There ought to be at least one appeal against the order made by a single judge on applications preferred under Article 226."
Clause 10 of the Patna Letters Patent refers to three classes of appeals that may be heard by a Division Bench: (1) appeals from the judgment of a single Judge in exercise of his original jurisdiction; (2) appeals from the judgment of a single Judge in first appeals; and (3) appeals from the judgment of a single. The Patna Letters Patent were granted by the Crown in 1916 and the clauses are almost identical with the clauses of the Letters Patent granted to the three High Courts of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay in 1865 in pursuance of the well-known Charter Act of 1861 (24 and 25 Victoria, Chapter 104). Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court provides for an appeal from a judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court to a Division Bench.
Also read: CBSE fails to comply with Patna High Court's orders in Sameer Raj vs. Union of India
No comments:
Post a Comment