[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Sameer Raj @ Sameer Raj Sinha vs The Union Of India on 27 January, 2026
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
