Madras High Court
M.Abdul Nabi vs Canara Bank on 3 August, 2012
Author: D.Hariparanthaman
Bench: D.Hariparanthaman
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03/08/2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.(MD)No.2716 of 2012 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2012 M.Abdul Nabi ... Petitioner vs. 1.Canara Bank Gomathipuram Branch, Represented by its Manager, Gomathipuram, Madurai-625 020. 2.Allahabad Bank, Anna Nagar Branch, Represented by its Senior Manager, Anna Nagar, Madurai-625 020. ... Respondents PRAYER Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in Ref.el.ssr/gomathi/2011, dated 10.02.2012 and the endorsement of the 2nd respondent dated 02.03.2012 made in the application of the petitioner and to quash the same and further direct the respondents herein to sanction the education loan for the petitioner's daughter. !For Petitioner ... Mr.Mr.M.Rajarajan ^For Respondents ... Mr.Mr.Jayavel (For R2) :ORDER
The petitioner is an Advocate by profession practicing before the District Court, Madurai. He has daughter by name Asha Begum. She is studying first year MBBS course at Annapoorna Medical College & Hospital at Salem affiliated to Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, Chennai and an approved institution under the Medical Council of India. She got admission in the said college under Management quota. To meet the educational expenses of his daughter, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent-Bank in the month of August-2011 to avail of educational loan. He fulfilled all the conditions that were imposed by the 1st respondent-Bank. He was asked to open an Savings Bank Account. Hence, he opened the SB A/c. Thereafter, he was asked to get various certificates. In total, the petitioner has produced 17 documents as required by the 1st respondent-Bank. Ultimately, the 1st respondent-Bank returned the application of the petitioner by an order dated 10.02.2012 stating that the petitioner does not come under the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent-Bank.
2.Thereafter, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent-Bank on 02.03.2012. The application of the petitioner for educational loan was returned by the 2nd respondent-Bank with an endorsement, dated 02.03.2012, stating that since his daughter obtained admission in the college under Management quota, the petitioner is not entitled to educational loan.
3.Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the impugned orders dated 10.02.2012 of the 1st respondent and order dated 02.03.2012 of the 2nd respondent.
4.Notice of motion was ordered on 06.03.2012. Today, with the consent of both sides, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are contrary to the decision of the Division Bench of this this Court in W.A.1629 of 2011 and W.P.120 of 2012 (batch cases), dated 20.04.2012. According to him, the petitioner's daughter got admission for the academic year 2011-2012 and the IBA guidelines for the educational loan for 2011-12 was that the students who got admission under management quota should have obtained more than 60% mark. In the guidelines. dated 28.04.2011, IBA prescribed only 60% mark for the students, who joined under Management quota, as eligibility for seeking for educational loan. Since the petitioner's daughter obtained more than the prescribed mark, the petitioner is entitled for educational loan. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that IBA guidelines dated 30.08.2011 for the year 2012-2013 has been applied erroneously by the 2nd respondent-Bank and the application of the petitioner for educational loan was returned on the ground that the petitioner's daughter got admission in the college under Management quota.
6.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Bank has submitted that as per the revised guidelines of the IBA, dated 30.08.2011, the students, who are admitted under Management quota, are not entitled to seek educational loan. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that earlier guidelines dated 28.04.2011 for the year 2011-2012 provides for educational loan to the student, who is admitted under management quota, if the student obtained marks more than 60%.
7.I have considered the submissions made on either sides.
8.As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the judgment in W.A.(MD).No.1629 of 2011 and W.P.(MD).No.8214 of 12 and etc., (batch cases), dated 20.04.2012, is squarely applicable to the facts of this case, as the scheme of IBA for the 2011-2012 shall be applicable to the petitioner and the subsequent scheme for the year 2012-2013 shall not be applicable to the petitioner, since the daughter of the petitioner joined the college in the earlier year. Para 12 of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court is extracted hereunder:-
"In the Order dated 12.12.2011 made in W.P.(MD).No.10425 of 2011, learned single Judge in extenso extracted IBA Model Educational Scheme - Circular NO.CE/159 dated 30.08.2011. As rightly contended by Mr.A.Haja Mohideen, learned counsel for the appellant and also Mr.Maheswaran, learned counsel appearing for the writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.1993 of 2012, IBA Model Educational Loan Scheme dated 30.08.2011, which come into effect from the academic year 2012-2013, is not applicable to the appellant. When the appellant is governed by revised IBA Guidelines in Circular No.83/2011 dated 28.04.2001, learned single judge was not right in referring to the Circular CE/159 dated 30.08.2011. To this limited extent, we differ from the learned single Judge."
9.Admittedly, the daughter of the petitioner obtained 87.6% mark in +2 examinations and therefore, as per the IBA scheme for the year 2011-2012, the petitioner is entitled to educational loan. Further more, I am of the view that IBA Scheme did not totally exclude the students from seeking educational loan, who are admitted under Management quota. Both under Government and management quota the students have to be admitted only based on the merits, as per the decision of the supreme court in TMA PAI Foundation and others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported 2002(8) SCC 481.
10.Initially, when more private colleges came into the field of education, the Constitution Bench in Unni Kirishan Vs. State of Andrha Pradesh reported in 1993(1) SCC 645 has devised a scheme providing 50% of the seat as 'free seat' and another 50% as 'payment seat'. Both the free seat and payment seat are to be filled up solely based on merit as per the said judgment of the Constitution Bench. Unni Krishnan case was reversed by the Larger Bench of the Honourable Apex Court in TMA PAI case. In TMA PAI case it has been held that there cannot be any free seat, that is, there cannot be any free seat after the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in TMA PAI Case. Thereafter, the students are classified as Government quota and Management quota. Both the students, who are admitted under Government quota and Management quota, should be admitted on merits alone. Even the students under management quota cannot be admitted without merits. Therefore, the Bank cannot say that the students admitted under Management quota cannot be considered for educational loan.
11.In fact, I have considered the issue relating to the grant of educational loan in detail in the order dated 16.09.2010 in S.Maran Vs. The Branch Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Chennai (W.P.No.556 of 2010) and held that the criteria for granting educational loan, particularly, after commercialization of education, is as to whether the applicant, who joined the B.E.Course, was eligible to join the course, as per the norms prescribed by AICTE/University/Government. Since there is no free seat after the Judgment of the Apex Curt in TMA PAI Case, poor cannot have recourse to education, if educational loan is deprived on one ground or other. The application for educational loan shall not be considered, as seeking loan for commercial purpose. The student is not approaching the Bank for commercial purpose. The student is also not making a claim for scholarship, where the merit shall be the criteria.
12.Therefore, viewed from any angle, the petitioner is entitled to educational loan for the studies of his daughter in MBBS course.
13.It is stated that educational loan upto Rs.4 lakhs would be given without any personal security and beyond Rs.4 lakhs, it is based on personal security.
14.For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. The petitioner is directed to re-submit the application for educational loan to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent is directed to sanction the educational loan to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of submissions of his application. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
ssv To,
1.Canara Bank Gomathipuram Branch, Represented by its Manager, Gomathipuram, Madurai-625 020.
2.Allahabad Bank, Anna Nagar Branch, Represented by its Senior Manager, Anna Nagar, Madurai-625 020.