Improper website publication prevents CBSE amendment from denying private candidates’ right to offer additional subjects

A bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia heard an intra‑court appeal by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) challenging a Single Judge’s order that directed the Board to permit certain Class XII pass‑outs to register as private candidates for an “additional subject” examination. The appeal questioned whether a Governing Body resolution of 26.12.2024 — which discontinued the additional‑subject category for private candidates — could be applied against students who had relied on the unamended Examination Bye‑Laws.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Single Judge’s directions that the affected students be allowed to register for the additional‑subject examination. The bench held that the amendment in the Bye‑Laws did not come into effect until it was validly published and that mere posting of Governing Body minutes under a separate website tab did not constitute reasonable publication to notify the students. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "For the reasons stated above, we find that there was no publication in the eye of law, of the amendment in the Bye‑Laws as per the resolution of the Governing Body of the CBSE dated 26.12.2024 before 15.09.2025 and as such the same would not have impacted the right of the respondents‑students to appear in the 'additional subject' examination as a private candidate. ... the amendment in the Bye‑Laws can be said to have come into effect and operation only from 15.09.2025..." The Court also noted established principles: "There can be no doubt about the proposition that where a law ... must be notified directly and reliably of the law and changes" and reiterated that "the doctrine of legitimate expectation can be invoked as a substantive and enforceable right."

Background

The dispute arose from Clause 43(i) of CBSE’s Examination Bye‑Laws, which originally allowed a candidate who had secured minimum Grade D in at least five subjects to offer an additional subject as a private candidate within six years of passing. The Clause had been amended in 2021 to reduce the period to two years. The CBSE’s Governing Body, in a meeting on 26.12.2024, decided to discontinue the additional‑subject facility for private candidates and to direct such students to the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS); the resolution was approved by the Controlling Authority on 22.01.2025.

Students who passed Class XII in 2024 and 2025 had prepared for one or two years to sit the additional subject under the then‑existing Bye‑Law. Public notices dated 04.09.2025 and 15.09.2025 omitted the additional‑subject registration option. Respondent‑students filed W.P.(C) 15086/2025 challenging the omission; the Single Judge allowed the petition on 05.02.2026 and directed CBSE to arrange registration for the students. CBSE contested that the Bye‑Law amendment was validly adopted and within policy, urging deference to educational policy changes and arguing that affected students could approach NIOS.

The High Court examined whether the amendment had been published in a manner that reasonably notified those governed. Relying on precedents including B.K. Srinivasan v. State of Karnataka and subsequent Supreme Court jurisprudence on legitimate expectation, the Court found that posting Governing Body minutes under a separate website tab did not amount to appropriate publication given CBSE’s consistent past practice of uploading Bye‑Law changes under a distinct "Bye‑Laws" or notification tab. The bench held that treating the amendment as operative before 15.09.2025 would be arbitrary and would prejudice students who had relied on the unamended Bye‑Law. The Court dismissed the intra‑court appeal and reiterated the Single Judge’s direction that CBSE must make necessary arrangements for registration of the students for the additional‑subject examination forthwith, within three working days if not already done. There were no orders as to costs.

Case No.: LPA 72/2026 Case Title: CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ..... Appellant Versus PRABHROOP KAUR KAPOOR & ORS. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Ms. Manisha Singh, ASC; Mr. Amit Gupta; Mr. R.V. Prahbhat; Mr. Shubham Sharma; Mr. Yashwardhan Sharma; Mr. Naman, Advocates. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocate with Mr. Lzafeer Ahmad B.F., Mr. Karan Nambiar, Mr. Sachin Dubey, Mr. Shubham Arun, Mr. Abhir Malik, Advocates for R‑1‑17; Mr. Sahaj Garg, SPC with Mr. Deepansh Sharma, GP for R‑18.