Madras High Court
S.Sugitha vs The Branch Manager on 21 May, 2010
Author: T.S.Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATE: 21/05/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM Writ Petition (MD)No.5924 of 2010 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2010 S.Sugitha .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Branch Manager, M/s.State Bank of Travancore, Peyode Branch, Peyode Post, Kanyakumari District. 2.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, At Nagercoil. .. Respondents Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to sanction educational loan to the petitioner, pursuant to the application dated 14.12.2009 for a sum of Rs.3,10,400/- for the petitioner's entire studies of B.E. Degree in Electronics and Communication Engineering within a prescribed time as fixed by this Hon'ble High Court. !For Petitioner ... Mr.K.Vamanan ^For Respondents R1 ... Mr.N.Murugesan R2 ... Mr.K.M.Vijayakumar Additional Government Pleader :ORDER
Mr.N.Murugesan, learned counsel takes notice for the first respondent and Mr.K.M.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the second respondent. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to sanction educational loan to the petitioner pursuant to the application dated 14.12.2009 for a sum of Rs.3,10,400/- for the petitioner's entire studies of B.E. Degree in Electronics and Communication Engineering within a prescribed time frame.
3. The case of the petitioner is that after she completed the Higher Secondary Course Examination in March 2009, applied for selection to Engineering course through Anna University and based on the marks secured by her in the Higher Secondary examination, she was selected for B.E. Electronics and Communication Engineering course and allotted a seat in Arunachala College of Engineering for Women, Manavillai, Vellichanthai Post, Kanyakumari District. The college is affiliated to the Anna University and the course is approved by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). According to the petitioner, her father is an agricultural coolie having an annual income of Rs.12,000/- and since her father could not afford to pay the fees for her Engineering degree, she approached the first respondent bank for sanction of educational loan of total sum of Rs.3,10,400/- at the rate of Rs.77,600/- per year for four years. The petitioner would further submit that there was great difficulty for her to even secure an application form for grant of educational loan and that having secured such form, submitted the same on 14.12.2009 and the first respondent bank did not sanction the educational loan and therefore, the petitioner submitted a petition before the second respondent on the grievance day on 08.03.2010. According to the petitioner, the refusal to sanction the educational loan by the first respondent is violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner and therefore, she is before this Court for the above relief.
4. The learned counsel for the first respondent would contend that the allegations made against the first respondent bank in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are absolutely false and at no point of time, the first respondent bank rejected the petitioner's request. The learned counsel produced a copy of communication signed by the Branch Manager of the State Bank of Travancore, Peyode Branch, Kanyakumari District dated 10.03.2010 addressed to the Lead District Manager, Lead Bank Office, Indian Overseas Bank, Nagercoil. By relying on the said communication, the learned counsel would submit that the bank did not reject the petitioner's application, but as she had applied only in the month of December 2009, long after commencement of academic year, the application will be considered for the second year onwards and the bank is ready to extend the facility for the petitioner by the next academic year provided she scores appreciably good marks for the forthcoming examination in conformity with the bank's minimum marks stipulation. Therefore, the learned counsel would contend that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have considered the submissions on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. Under the Model Educational Loan Scheme, it has been stated that Education is central to the Human Resources Development and empowerment in any country. National and State level policies are framed to ensure that this basic need of the population is met through appropriate public and private sector initiatives. While government endeavour to provide primary education to all on a universal basis, higher education is progressively moving into the domain of private sector. With a gradual reduction in government subsidies higher education is getting more and more costly and hence the need for institutional funding in this area. It has been further stated that the scope of education has widened both in India and abroad covering new courses in diversified areas. Development of human capital is a national priority and it should be the endeavour of all that no deserving student is denied opportunity to pursue higher education for want of financial support. Loans for education should be seen as an investment for economic development and prosperity. Knowledge and information would be the driving force for economic growth in the coming years. It has also been stated that based on recommendations made by a Study Group, IBA had prepared a Model Educational Loan Scheme in the year 2001 which was advised to banks for implementation by Reserve Bank of India vide circular No.RPCD.PLNFS.BC.No.83/06.12.05/2000-01 dated April 28, 2001 along with certain modifications suggested by the Government of India. In line with the announcement made by the Hon'ble Finance Minister in his Budget Speech for the year 2004-05, IBA had communicated certain changes in the security norms applicable to educational loans with limits above Rs.4 lakhs and up to Rs.7.5 lakhs.
7. The right conferred under Article 41 of the Constitution, though not a justiciable right, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it meaningful, by various decisions keeping in mind, the goal of socio economic justice as promised in the preamble of the Constitution and other directives embodied in part IV of the Constitution.
8. With this object, the Educational Loan Scheme has been brought about by the Government of India and to ensure that no deserving student is denied opportunity to pursue higher education for want of financial support.
9. The object behind the grant of educational loan is to ensure that a student aspiring to undergo higher education should not be put into disadvantageous position only on account of financial incapacity. Therefore, the banks are bound to examine the application for grant of educational loan bearing in mind the laudable object of the scheme envisaged by the Government of India. Merely because the petitioner applied for educational loan in December 2009, the same cannot be a reason for denying the loan for the first year of the four years B.E. Engineering Course. Therefore, the stand taken by the first respondent bank in the communication, dated 10.03.2010, in this regard cannot be countenanced. The first respondent is bound to consider the application made by the petitioner in its entirety to enable her to complete the four years B.E. Degree Course. One other reason assigned in the letter dated 10.03.2010 is that the bank would be ready to extend the facility provided the petitioner scores appreciably good marks in the forthcoming examination in conformity with the banks minimum marks stipulation. This very issue came up for consideration before this Court in W.P.No.33933 of 2007 and this Court by an order, dated 16.11.2007, set aside the order rejecting the request for sanction of educational loan on the ground that the candidate was having poor academic record. In the said order, this Court held as follows:
9. On the face of it one can see that the order passed by the second respondent is patently illegal and against the policy of the Government and it is against the concept of propagating education among the students especially to the students who come from down trodden community. A reference to the impugned order passed by the second respondent bank which reads as follows:
"We refer to the above and inform you that due to poor academic career of the student, we are unable to consider educational loan for your son."
makes it very clear that the second respondent has predetermined the issue even before the petitioner has chosen to join in his B.E. Decree Course. Merely because in his Plus Two (+2) examination he has failed in one subject does not mean that he is unqualified. Based on his qualification only the authorities competent have admitted him in an Engineering Degree Course and it is not for the second respondent to under estimate the quality of any such candidate. On the other hand, even a reference to the guidelines which is stated in the current guidelines shows that the basis of issuance of guidelines is to encourage education among the students and no where it is stated that only bright students should alone be given such loans. On the other hand the guidelines show that in the normal circumstances, while appraising the loan, the prospects of the future income of the student which has to be considered and it is also open to the bank to consider the prospects of the parent/guardian.
Thus, in view of the settled legal position as stated above, the second reason assigned in the letter dated 10.03.2010 is also required to be held as untenable.
10. This Court in S.Saran Kumar vs. The Regional Manager, Karur Vysya Bank, Trichy and another in W.P.No.8780 of 2010 dated 12.05.2010, wWhile considering the grant of educational loan to a student selected by the Anna University in the Management quota, like that of the petitioner herein quashed the order passed by the bank and directed the grant of educational loan. In the said order, this Court held as follows:
"13. The Schemes and Policies are framed by the Central Government and the benefit should reach the deserving persons. Rejecting the claim of education loan to the petitioner by the second respondent by raising untenable and hypertechnical ground establishes the mindset of the person, who is in charge of the bank. The Bank is not entitled to take a rigid and hairsplitting interpretation in cases like this, without bearing in mind the object of the Scheme......"
11. In view of the above reasoning, the petitioner is entitled to succeed and accordingly the writ petition is allowed as prayed for and the first respondent is directed to consider and sanction the educational loan as sought for by the petitioner in her application dated 14.12.2009 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
cs To
1. The Branch Manager, M/s.State Bank of Travancore, Peyode Branch, Peyode Post, Kanyakumari District.
2. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, At Nagercoil.