The principle that legitimate expectations in educational policy cannot be arbitrarily overridden, especially in exceptional circumstances.

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P.No.3376 of 2026 and W.M.P.No.3794 of 2026 B.Shajimon .. Petitioner Versus

1. Union of India, Department of School Education and Literacy, Represented by its Secretary, Education Department, 122-C, Shastri Bhavan, Dr.Rajendraprasad Road, New Delhi – 110 001.

2. The Central Board of Secondary Education, Represented by its Secretary, CBSE Integrated Office Complex, Sector – 23, Phase – 1, DWARKA, New Delhi – 110 007.

3. The Regional Director, The Central Board of Secondary Education, 1360-A. J-Block, Anna Nagar West, Chennai – 600 040. .. Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling upon the records pertaining to the impugned order of the 3^rd respondent in Ref.No.CBSE/RO(M)/Legal/2025/WP35514/2025/SP, dated 08.01.2026 and quash the same and further direct the 3^rd respondent to permit the petitioner’s daughter S.ASWATHA to appear and write the subject of Mathematics as an additional subject in Senior School Certificate Examination 2025-2026 as a private candidate and assess and declare her results.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Mohamed Ismail For Respondents : Mr.D.Baskar, Central Government Standing Counsel, for R1 : Mr.T.Sri Krishna Bhagavat, for RR-2 and 3

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed for Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 08.01.2026 and to quash the same and further direct the third respondent to permit the petitioner’s daughter, S.Aswatha, to appear and write the subject of Mathematics as an additional subject in Senior School Certificate Examination 2025-2026.

2. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perusing the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s daughter was admitted into class XI under the C.B.S.E stream in the Sri Chaitanya Techno School for the subjects containing English, Biology, Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. Accordingly, the student underwent the subject of Mathematics throughout her XI standard and sometime through the XII standard also. Suddenly, by considering that the petitioner is going to write the NEET Examination and take up Medicine as her career, upon certain advises, instead of Mathematics, she was made to select Physical Education while submitting the details to the Central Board of Secondary Education. Now, the petitioner was not successful in the NEET Examination and if she takes Mathematics as an additional subject, she can get admission in any Engineering College. Therefore, when the respondents have a scheme as per bye-law 43 to study an additional subject and when the petitioner prayed for the same, the same is now rejected by the impugned order, dated 08.01.2026.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Delhi High Court also considered a similar issue in the judgment in Prabhroop Kaur Kapoor and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Anr. (W.P. (C).No.15086 of 2025) and held that merely because there is a policy change, legitimate expectations cannot be overridden and directed students be permitted to take up the additional subject.

4. Per contra, the learned Counsel for C.B.S.E would submit that the bye-law 43 will not be applicable as in this case, the student has studied only the Physical Education in XI and XII standard and not Mathematics. Unless the students study the Mathematics