Kerala High Court
The Manager vs Reshma Syam S on 1 September, 2014
Author: Ashok Bhushan
Bench: A.M.Shaffique, Ashok Bhushan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/27TH KARTHIKA, 1936
WA.No. 1642 of 2014 IN WP(C).20561/2013
-------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 20561/2013 DATED 01-09-2014
..............
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT :
------------------------------
THE MANAGER, ANDHRA BANK,
POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PIN - 695 035.
BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR)
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER :
-------------------------------
RESHMA SYAM S., KALA BHAVAN,
T.C. 53/1654, PONNUMANGALAM,
NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
BY SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-11-2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA.No. 1642 of 2014 IN WP(C).20561/2013
APPENDIX
APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A : TRUE COPY OF THE MODEL SCHEME ON EDUCATIONAL LOAN
APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF THE APPELLANT BANK
DATED 28.05.2012.
ANNEXURE B : TRUE COPY F THE APPLICATION FOR LOAN ALONG WITH THE
SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE C : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER CREDIT
OF THE ZONAL BANK, BANGALORE IN FAVOUR OF THE BRANCH
MANAGER DATED 20.03.2013.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
PA TO JUDGE
C.R.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, Ag.C.J. & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.A. No. 1642 OF 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 18th day of November, 2014
JUDGMENT
Ashok Bhushan, Ag.C.J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 01.09.2014 in W.P.(C) No.20561 of 2013.
2. The writ petition was filed by the respondent herein praying for a direction to the respondent Bank to sanction the education loan sought by the petitioner and disburse the amount in accordance with the fee structure shown as per Ext.P2. The respondent shall be referred to hereinafter as writ petitioner.
3. After completing the High Secondary course, the petitioner has applied for B.Sc Nursing Course before the National College of Nursing, Bangalore which is affiliated to the Rajeev Gandhi University of Health Services and approved by the Indian Nursing Council, New Delhi. The duration of the course is 4 years. Petitioner was selected under merit quota WA No. 1642 of 2014 -:2:- and her admission number was 15. Ext.P1 Eligibility Certificate indicates that the petitioner has got 88 marks for Physics, 92 marks for Chemistry and 83 marks for Biology, out of 100 marks and stood as rank No.18. An application was given to the Bank for sanction of educational loan of Rs.3,30,000/-. The Bank did not sanction the loan. Hence the writ petition was filed. In the writ petition also the Bank had put in appearance but no statement or counter affidavit was filed. When the writ petition was taken on 01.09.2014, the learned Single Judge, noticing the fact that matter is pending for the last one year and no statement has been filed, issued a direction to the Bank to sanction the loan. It is useful to quote paragraph 2 of the judgment which is to the following effect:
"Though this matter is pending for the last one year, no statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent Bank. Therefore, there shall be a direction tot he respondent Bank to disburse bank loan to the petitioner as per Ext.P2 and also by taking note of the eligibility condition in Ext.P4. Needful shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment."
WA No. 1642 of 2014 -:3:-
4. Learned counsel for the appellant Bank submits that the Bank could not file its statement in the writ petition as the matter was earlier adjourned at the instance of the petitioner for challenging the guidelines. It is submitted that, 21.07.2014 was the first date of hearing and hence the matter could not be considered on merits. In the appeal, the Bank has now brought on record the guidelines for admission which is filed as Annexure A dated 28.05.2012. The learned Single Judge has not adverted to the guidelines specifically, hence we deem it appropriate to consider the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant on merits.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ petitioner was not admitted through any Entrance Test nor has secured 65% marks in the qualifying academic year examination, hence she was not eligible for loan. He further submits that the Bank has already communicated the petitioner by letter dated 20.03.2013 that she has not fulfilled the criteria and her case cannot be considered on merit. The Bank further WA No. 1642 of 2014 -:4:- stated that if the applicant provides suitable collateral security of not less than 150%, the bank may consider her case.
6. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records. It is useful to quote the revised model scheme on educational loans which has been issued by the Bank on 28.05.2012. The learned counsel has referred to Clause I(d) and I(e) of the Scheme, which read as under:
"I) Revised Model Scheme on Educational Loans for Higher Studies in India and Abroad (2011).
(d) Should have secured admission to a higher education course in recognized institutions in India or Abroad through Entrance Test/Merit Based Selection process after completion of HSC (10 plus 2 or equivalent).
(e) In case where admission is not through common entrance test and the marks secured in the qualifying examination is the only criteria adopted, the minimum cut off marks should be 65% in aggregate in the qualifying academic examination."
Clause I(f) is also relevant which is extracted below:
"(f) The cut-ff 65% marks in aggregate in the qualifying academic examination is also applicable to all courses offered by WA No. 1642 of 2014 -:5:- deemed universities and also to non-professional and non-
technical courses, irrespective of the common entrance test."
7. The communication which has been issued by the Bank to the petitioner dated 20.03.2013 also referred to the guidelines dated 28.05.2012 and stated that since the petitioner's admission was not by common entrance test and she has not secured 65% in aggregate in the qualifying examination, she is not eligible for the loan. For deciding the issue, we have to interpret Clause I(d) and (e) of the Scheme. Clause I(d) is the general condition regarding student's eligibility for loan which provides "Should have secured admission to a higher education course in recognized institutions in India or Abroad through Entrance Test/Merit Based Selection process after completion of HSC (10 plus 2 or equivalent)". The insistence of the Bank is that the students will be given the benefit of loan only when they have secured admission to higher education course in a recognised institution in India through Entrance Test/merit test selection. In this case the petitioner had been admitted in the institution which is recognised by Indian Nursing Council and WA No. 1642 of 2014 -:6:- from Ext.P3 it is clear that 60 seats have been allocated to the National College of Nursing, Bangalore, where the petitioner has sought admission. Thus, the institution where the petitioner has sought admission is a recognised institution. The petitioner was not admitted through the common entrance test, which is also clear from the records.
8. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that since in the qualifying examination i.e., 10 + 2 she has not secured 65% aggregate, she cannot be treated as a merit candidate for loan. We have perused Clause (e) which has been relied on by learned counsel for the appellant. Clause (d) and (e) have to be read together. Clause (d) is explanatory as to process of admission, which is either through any entrance test or on the marks secured in the qualifying examination. Clause (e) indicates that if there is no common entrance test and the marks in the qualifying examination is the only criteria, then the minimum 65% cut off marks in aggregate is required. In the present case the merit of the candidate in the qualifying WA No. 1642 of 2014 -:7:- examination (10+ 2) is not the only criteria for admission. But the admission had been conducted on the basis of a test conducted by the institution itself. The admission of the petitioner when based on a test conducted by a recognised college, the criteria i.e. 65% in the qualifying examination, is not applicable. The procedure under which the petitioner was admitted is thus clearly an admission secured on the merit based selection process as indicated in Clause I(d). Institutions which are recognised by the Indian Nursing Council are recognised institutions and any criteria for such admission cannot be said to be not a merit based criteria. The reason which have been thus indicated to the petitioner for not sanctioning the loan cannot be accepted. The Bank was relying on a misconception that since the petitioner has not secured 65% marks in the qualifying examination, her application cannot be considered for sanction of loan. Collateral security of not less than 150% of the limit have been demanded which is applicable with regard to management quota students as per Clause (f) quoted above. WA No. 1642 of 2014 -:8:-
We thus are of the clear opinion that the petitioner was fully eligible for the loan and the Bank has erroneously rejected her application. We uphold the decision of the learned Single Judge for the reasons stated above. The Writ Appeal is dismissed. The learned Single Judge has already directed to disburse the loan amount within four weeks. We confirm the said direction and the Bank shall disburse the loan amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Ashok Bhushan, Acting Chief Justice.
A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
ttb