Kerala High Court
The Regional Manager vs Thomas
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Mohan M.Shantanagoudar, Sathish Ninan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/30TH KARTHIKA, 1938
WA. NO.1136/2016 () IN WP(C).2931/2016
-------------------
FROM THE JUDGMENT DATED 16-03-2016 IN WP(C) NO.2931/2016.
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:
-------------------------------
1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA GRAMIN BANK,
REGIONAL OFFICE, DEVAN'S TOWER,
EAST HILL ROAD, KARAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE-673 010.
2. THE MANAGER, KERALA GRAMIN BANK,
MARANCHATTY BRANCH, KOOMBARA P.O.,
KOZHIKODE-673 604.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.M.ANEESH
SRI.ADARSH KUMAR
SRI.BIJU VARGHESE ABRAHAM
SRI.DILEEP CHANDRAN
RESPONDENT(S)PETITIONER IN W.P(C) & 3RD RESPONDENT:
---------------------------------------------------
1. THOMAS, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. MAICHEL,
CHEEKKANANI HOUSE, PALLITHAZHE,
THOTTUMUKKAM P.O.AREEKODE, MALAPPURAM DIST.-673 639.
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
R1 BY ADV.SRI.SANTHARAM.P
R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.ASIF
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-11-2016, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
KRJ
MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, C.J. &
SATHISH NINAN, J
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.A. No.1136 of 2016
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 21st day of November, 2016
JUDGMENT
Mohan M.Shantanagoudar, C.J.
The judgment dated 16.03.2016 passed in W.P(C) No.2931 of 2016 is called in question in this appeal by the Kerala Gramin Bank on the ground that the judgment is contrary to the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arya v. Reserve Bank of India [2015 (4) KLT 478].
2. The first respondent, writ petitioner, is the father of Kumari Anjana Thomas. She was admitted to first year B.Sc. Nursing Course having four years' duration at Udupi Dhanvanthari College of Nursing, Udupi, Karnataka. She got the seat in the common entrance test conducted by the said college for the year 2015-2016 and her name was in the select list as Seat No.26.
3. After admission to the first year B.Sc. Nursing Course, the first respondent applied for an educational loan for his daughter to pursue her studies. The said request was rejected by the appellant Bank for the reason that the first respondent's daughter has not secured the minimum prescribed marks in the qualifying subjects, WA.1136/16 -:2:- as stipulated in the relevant circular issued by the Bank. Hence, the first respondent approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.2931 of 2016, which came to be allowed by this Court directing the appellant to consider the application submitted by the first respondent for grant of educational loan, afresh. The learned single Judge, while concluding the impugned judgment, has observed that the entrance test conducted by the college is to ensure fairness as well as transparency in admission with an objective to admit meritorious candidates alone.
4. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides who presented their respective cases.
5. There cannot be any dispute that the Bank and the student are bound by Ext.R1(a) scheme pertaining to the educational loan for pursuing higher education in India and abroad. The scheme is formulated by the Indian Banks' Association. The eligibility criteria is at clause (4) of the scheme and the same reads thus:
"4. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA 4.1 Students Eligibility 7 The student should be an Indian National. 7 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). However, entrance test or selection purely based on marks obtained in WA.1136/16 -:3:- qualifying examination may not be the criterion for admission to some of the post graduate courses or research programmes. In such cases, banks will have to adopt appropriate criteria based on employability and reputation of the institution concerned.
Note:
It would be in order for banks to consider a meritorious student (who qualifies for a seat under merit quota) eligible for loan under this scheme even if the student chooses to pursue a course under Management Quota."
6. From the aforementioned scheme, it is amply clear that a meritorious student, who qualifies for the seat under merit quota conducted through entrance test/merit based selection process after completion of HSC (10 plus 2 or equivalent), is eligible for loan under this scheme. It is also made clear therein that the student would be eligible for loan under the said scheme even if the student chooses to pursue the course under management quota after qualifying for a seat under merit quota.
7. It is not in dispute in this matter that the daughter of the first respondent is studying in Udupi Dhanvanthari College of Nursing, Udupi, which comes under Karnataka State. It is also not in dispute that the notification dated 21.9.2013 issued by the Government of Karnataka refers to seat sharing ratio as to 20:80 between the Government and the management, in respect of WA.1136/16 -:4:- private colleges. From the various notifications issued by the Government of Karnataka on this subject, it is found that for admission to seats in Government college and Government seats in private colleges in Karnataka State, it is the Rajive Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore, which is entitled to conduct selection and the selection in the management seat is to be conducted by the management itself. It implies that 100% of the seats in Government nursing colleges and 20% of the seats in private nursing colleges will have to be filled by the students, who get through the entrance examinations conducted by Rajive Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore. Remaining 80% of the seats in private colleges are to be filled up by the private managements based on their own entrance tests.
8. It is not in dispute that the first respondent's daughter has got seat in the 80% of seats allocated in favour of private nursing college i.e. Udupi Dhanvanthari College of Nursing, Udupi. If it is so, then the eligibility criteria, as found in the aforementioned scheme, comes in the way of the daughter of the first respondent to get education loan under the scheme in as much as the seat, which was allotted in favour of the first respondent's daughter, is deemed to be a management quota seat for the purpose of the scheme. WA.1136/16 -:5:-
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, we conclude that the learned single Judge is not justified in directing the appellant Bank to consider the application filed by the first respondent for grant of educational loan under the scheme in question. Accordingly, the judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside. Writ appeal is allowed.
Sd/-
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar Chief Justice Sd/-
Sathish Ninan, Judge krj.21/11/16 /true copy/ P.A to Judge