Sameer Raj @ Sameer Raj SinhaversusThe Union of India

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18381 of 2025
     ======================================================
1.    Sameer Raj @ Sameer Raj Sinha, Son of Sh. Arun Kumar Sinha, Resident of
      63-C/C, South of Post Office Building, Mohalla- Peoples Co-operative
      Colony, Post Office- Lohia Nagar, District- Patna- 800020, under
      guardianship of his father.
2.   Arun Kumar Sinha, Son of Late Yogeshwar Prasad Sinha, Resident of 63-
     C/C, South of Post Office Building, Mohalla- Peoples Co-operative Colony,
     Post Office- Lohia Nagar, District- Patna- 800020.

                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                      Versus

1.   The Union of India through the Secretary (School of Education and
     Literacy), Ministry of Human Resource Department, Shastri Bhawan, New
     Delhi.
2.   The State of Bihar, through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
     Department, New Secretariat, Patna.
3.   The Director, Secondary Education, Education Department, New Secretariat,
     Patna.
4.   The Chairman, Central Board of Secondary Education, Shiksha Kendra, 2,
     Community Centre, Preet Vihar, New Delhi.
5.   The Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education, Shiksha Kendra, 2,
     Community Centre, Preet Vihar, New Delhi.
6.   Regional Officer, Central Board of Secondary Education, Regional Office,
     Ambica Complex, Behind SBI Colony, Near Brahmsthan, Sheikhpura, Raja
     Bazar, Bailey Road, Patna-800014.
7.   B.D. Public School, Buddha Colony, Patna through its Director Mr. S.B.
     Rai.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :     Mr. Y. C. Verma, Sr. Advocate
                                  Ms. Priyanka Singh, Advocate
     For the CBSC           :     Mr. Vinay Krishna Tripathy, Advocate
     For the State          :     Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to AAG-4
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
     ORAL JUDGMENT
      Date : 27-01-2026

                       Heard Mr. Y. C. Verma, learned Senior Advocate
Patna High Court CWJC No.18381 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
                                           2/11




         for the petitioners and Mr. Vinay Krishna Tripathy, learned

         Advocate for the Central Board of Secondary Education and Mr.

         Sanjay Kumar, learned Advocate for the State.

                        2. This is the third round of litigation led by a

         student Sameer Raj @ Sameer Raj Sinha, who was duly

         admitted in B.D. Public School, Buddha Colony, Patna; a school

         duly affiliated with Central Board of Secondary Education (in

         short ‘CBSE’) on 13.04.2018 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

         this Court through his guardian/father in C.W.J.C. No. 17241 of

         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
Patna High Court CWJC No.18381 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
                                           3/11




         allow/accept the registration of the petitioner no.1, irrespective

         of his age being less than 15 years.

                        3. The learned Court having taken note of the

         provisions prescribed in the Bihar Education Code and the By-

         laws of the C.B.S.E. opined that a student below the age of 05

         years cannot be admitted in Class-I and if a student is getting

         admission above Class-I, he shall be admitted in higher class at

         appropriate age meaning thereby above the age of 05 years. The

         Court further took note of Article 291 of the Code and observed

         that it starts with the word “ordinarily” as such, the age

         prescribed is meant for normal circumstances. If a student is

         child prodigy and has exceptional merit, in that case Article 291

         of the Code may not be treated as absolute and in case of

         exceptional merit of a student he may be allowed to appear in

         the Board Examination even below the prescribed age.

         However, the Court finally observed that extraordinary

         intelligence / merit of such candidate can be tested by the

         Examining Body i.e. C.B.S.E. The permission to take the Board

         Examination for under age student can only be granted in

         exceptional circumstances for which C.B.S.E. is the best Judge.

         Hence liberty was granted to the petitioners to file a

         representation before the Chairman of the C.B.S.E. along with
Patna High Court CWJC No.18381 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
                                           4/11




         all relevant papers and the previous results of the petitioner no.1

         within a stipulated period. The Chairman of the C.B.S.E. is

         directed to consider his case and if he is found exceptionally

         meritorious and the Chairman of the C.B.S.E. is satisfied, he

         may be allowed to participate in the Board Examination to be

         held in 2025.

                        4. In pursuance of the afore noted decision of this

         Court, a representation was filed before the Chairman of the

         C.B.S.E., however, the claim of the petitioner no.1 for allowing

         him to appear in Board Examination of C.B.S.E., 2025 came to

         be rejected and accordingly the representation of the petitioner

         stood disposed of.

                        5. The petitioners being dissatisfied with the order

         of the Chairman of the C.B.S.E. again approached this Court in

         C.W.J.C. No. 10321 of 2024 for identical prayer to allow the

         petitioner no.1 to appear in the Board Examination, besides

         questioning the legality of the order passed by the Chairman of

         the C.B.S.E.

                        6. The Court having gone through the case records

         and the impugned order did not find any infirmity or illegality in

         the order dated 20.05.2024 passed by the Chairman, C.B.S.E.

         and accordingly dismissed the writ petition vide order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.18381 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
                                           5/11




         08.01.2025.

                        7. The order of the learned Single Judge dated

         08.01.2025 was put to question before the learned Division

         Bench in L.P.A. No. 55 of 2025. The learned Division Bench

         took note of the fact that earlier a Bench of this Court finding

         the performance of the appellant-student to be exemplary, gave

         a window to him to approach the C.B.S.E, which in turn was

         directed to take into account the performance of the appellant

         and take a decision regarding permitting him to appear in the

         examination even when he was under age. The reason assigned

         by the C.B.S.E. while rejecting the claim of the appellant-

         student was held to be good and cogent reasons, which has been

         duly affirmed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.

         10321 of 2024. Finally, the Court while dismissing the appeal

         has been pleased to observe that there is no reason why the

         minimum age fixed by the State Government for a 10 th standard

         student should be breached and the appellant be permitted to

         waive such requirement only on the ground of his having shown

         great promise in the past. The appellant was advised to show his

         brightness when he comes of age to appear in such

         examination.

                        8. The matter was finally taken by the petitioners to
Patna High Court CWJC No.18381 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
                                           6/11




         Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C)

         No.8849 of 2025, however, the Special Leave Petition also

         stood dismissed vide order dated 07.04.2025.

                        9. Despite the issue having been set at rest by the

         learned Division Bench of this Court and no reason being found

         for interference by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave

         to Appeal (C) No.8849 of 2025, the petitioner no.1, who is a

         student and his father (petitioner no.2) preferred the present writ

         petition seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus

         directing, inter alia, upon the respondents to ensure that the case

         of the petitioner no.1, now presently aged about 12 years and 10

         months and student of Class-X, be duly considered for

         registration and appearance in the Class-X C.B.S.E. Board

         Examination, notwithstanding the alleged shortfall of age as

         reflected in the C.B.S.E. Online portal. Besides the aforesaid

         prayer, the petitioner no.1 in sum and substance has made all the

         prayers, as was sought for in the earlier round of litigation, apart

         from seeking a declaration that insistence on age criteria, in

         disregard of the petitioner’s exceptional merit is in violation of

         catena of decisions of several High Courts and the action of the

         respondents is arbitrary, depriving the petitioner no.1’s right to

         education guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18381 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
                                           7/11




         Constitution of India. Inasmuch as the C.B.S.E. and the State of

         Bihar ought to consider the consistent academic record,

         exceptional merit and achievements of petitioner no.1.

                        10. Mr. Y. C. Verma, learned Senior Advocate for

         the petitioners placed reliance upon the decision of the High

         Court of Delhi at New Delhi in the case of Central Board of

         Secondary Education Vs. Master Tathagat Avtar Tulsi

         (Minor) (L.P.A. No. 33 of 1997) as well as the decision

         rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in

         Writ Petition No. 13186 of 2025 (Aarav Singh Vs. Union of

         India & Others) and the decision of this Court in Monark

         Monalisa through his father Sri Kali Prasad Pal Vs. The

         State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 10357 of 2008). It is

         further contended that refusal of the respondent State or the

         C.B.S.E. to devise or adopt any mechanism for assessing the

         exceptional merit of a student, despite judicial recognition of

         such requirement amounts to abdication of duty and violation of

         constitutional mandate.

                        11. The petitioner no.1 was subjected to various

         Neuro Psychological Assessment and he was clinically

         established superior, intellectual with proven cognitive maturity

         and exceptional academic ability, hence not allowing him to
Patna High Court CWJC No.18381 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
                                           8/11




         appear in the Board Examination (AISSE), 2026 would

         jeopardize his career.

                        12. On the other hand, Mr. Vinay Krishna Tripathy,

         learned Advocate for the C.B.S.E. has submitted that once in

         pursuant to the order of this Court, the merit of the petitioner

         was duly assessed by the Chairman of the C.B.S.E., who did not

         find any good reason to allow the petitioner to appear in the

         Board Examination by making relaxation in the minimum age

         and the said order was also affirmed by the learned Single Judge

         as well as Division Bench of this Court and the petitioners

         Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court also

         stood dismissed, the present writ petition should not be

         entertained and the same is an abuse of the process of the Court.

                        13. This Court after having careful consideration to

         the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for the

         respective parties and taking note of the position of law as well

         as decision rendered by the learned Benches of the High 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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18381 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
                                           9/11




                        14. The learned Single Judge in the case of Monark

         Monalisa (supra) having taken note of the order passed by the

         Delhi High Court in Master Tathagat Avtar Tulsi (supra) has

         rightly observed that even though there is no mandatory cut off

         provided but that should not be taken that any one or every one

         underage can be allowed to appear. Such permission is to be an

         exception and, thus, being an exception can only be granted in

         exceptional circumstances of which the Board is the best judge.

                        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.

                        17. The Court in round of litigations has rightly
Patna High Court CWJC No.18381 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
                                          10/11




         held that the decision of the CBSE is to be weighed, who has to

         apply its mind to assess the merit of a student and if his case is

         found to be an exceptional, in such circumstances, he may be

         allowed to appear in the Board examination.

                        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.

                        20. 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
             Patna High Court CWJC No.18381 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
                                                       11/11




                      of the fault of the school, who allowed the admission despite

                      having minimum age for the appropriate class.



                                                  (Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          30.01.2026
Transmission Date       NA