The retrospective application of policy changes by an authority must respect established rights and expectations of stakeholders, particularly in education, to prevent arbitrary and unjust outcomes.

JUDGMENT :

JASMEET SINGH, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the notifications dated 04.09.2025 and 15.09.2025 issued by the respondent No. 2.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The petitioners are students who have successfully completed their Class XII Board Examinations in 2025 with the schools affiliated to the respondent No. 2.

3. The respondent No. 1 is the ministry which serves as the controlling authority of the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2, Central Board of Secondary Education (“CBSE”) is responsible for conducting Class X and Class XII board exams inter alia designing and renewing curriculum.

4. The examinations conducted by the CBSE are governed by Examination Bye Laws, 1995 (“Bye Laws”). These Bye Laws are amended from time to time to cater to the needs of changing time. One of such amendment came in the year 2013 inserting Clause No. 43(i) thereby allowing the students to appear in an Additional Subject as a private candidate within six years of passing of the Class XII board examination. In the year 2021, this time limit to appear in an Additional Subject by a private candidate was reduced to two years.

5. Subsequent to passing the examination in the year 2025, the petitioners decided to take a gap year to prepare for an Additional Subject, i.e. the sixth subject to enhance their career prospects and to fulfil the eligibility criteria which mandate the requirement of such Additional Subject.

6. The petitioners dedicated a full academic year to prepare for the examination of the said subject with the expectation that the option to register would still be available to them as per the prevailing policy of CBSE. However, CBSE on 04.09.2025 issued a public notification for 2026 examination which eliminated the option of “Additional Subject” category for private candidates who had already graduated. The corresponding online registration portal which was opened by the CBSE on 09.09.2025 confirmed the said change in the examination policy.

7. The petitioner No. 1 sought clarity regarding the same and sent a detailed representation to CBSE via email dated 12.09.2025. The removal of Additional Subject category was brought to the attention of CBSE and it was further urged to reconsider the said decision to remove such category. The petitioner No. 1 received the reply to her representation from CBSE on the same day itself which stated that:-

a) the CBSE primarily provides education through “Face to Face mode.

b) the students must have minimum 75% attendance to be eligible for examination in a subject

c) there was a requirement of continuous internal assessment in all subjects for which marks were awarded towards the final result.

d) classes X and XII are a two-year programme implying that subject must be studied in full duration.

8. On 15.09.2025, CBSE finally issued a formal public notification on its website, reiterating the same justification provided in the email to the petitioner No. 1. The notice additionally mentioned that the student not fulfilling the above criteria shall not be eligible for examination in Additional Subjects in board examinations as a private candidate. The notification further drew a clear distinction between CBSE and National Institute of Open Schooling (“NIOS”).

9. The petitioners are, thus, aggrieved by the impugned notifications dated 04.09.2025 and 15.09.2025, which render the said decision o