Judgment :- This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the 2nd respondent dated 5. 2009 whereby the petitioner’s request to sanction loan to pursue his studies has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not a meritorious candidate. 2. According to the petitioner, he is a Scheduled Caste candidate and he has completed his B.B.A. Course. He is the first graduate in his family and he has secured second class in his degree course. After completing his degree course, he got a seat in Government quota in Kavery Engineering College, Salem to do M.B.A. Since, it is a private college, the petitioner had to pay a huge amount towards tuition fees and boarding charges. Since the financial status of the family of the petitioner was very poor, he was unable to meet the educational expenses. As per the estimate given by the college authorities, the total expenses for two years was Rs. 1,45,200/-. Hence, the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent, which is a lead bank, in August, 2008, seeking educational loan. But, by the impugned order, the request of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not a meritorious candidate. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as far as the respondent Bank is concerned, it is the lead Bank in that area executing all the work of Nationalised Bank. Therefore, the petitioner had no other option, but to approach the respondent Bank to avail the educational loan. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent Bank is also governed by the circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India. As far as educational loan is concerned, the Reserve Bank of India has issued a circular dated 28.04.2001, wherein under clause 4.2, the eligibility criteria for sanction of education loan has been fixed and it reads as follows: “4.2 Student Eligibility: • Should be an Indian National • Secured admission to professional/technical courses through Entrance Test/Selection process. As far as educational loan is concerned, the Reserve Bank of India has issued a circular dated 28.04.2001, wherein under clause 4.2, the eligibility criteria for sanction of education loan has been fixed and it reads as follows: “4.2 Student Eligibility: • Should be an Indian National • Secured admission to professional/technical courses through Entrance Test/Selection process. • Secured admission to foreign University/Institutions • Should have scored minimum 60% (50% for SC/STs) in the qualifying examination for admission to graduation courses.” As far as the petitioner is concerned, he is a Scheduled Caste candidate and as per the mark sheet enclosed in the typed set of papers, the petitioner has secured 62.50% in Part-I (Tamil), 49.25% in Part-II (English) and 57.41% in Part-III (Major & Allied) in degree course. As per the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India, candidates belonging to Scheduled Casts/Scheduled Tribe should have secured a minimum of 50% marks and since the petitioner satisfied the eligibility criteria, his application seeking educational loan was received by the respondent Bank. However, thereafter, on the ground that he is not a meritorious candidate, his claim was rejected, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is contrary to circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 would submit that as far as the respondent Bank is concerned, it is a private bank. Consequently, no writ petition will lie as against it. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on paragraph 33 of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in Writ Appeal No. 2245 of 2002, which reads as follows: “33. For the discussion held above, in our view, a private company carrying on banking business as a scheduled bank, cannot be termed as an institution or a company carrying on any statutory or public duty. A private body or a person may be amenable to writ jurisdiction only where it may become necessary to compel such body or association to enforce any statutory obligations or such obligations of public nature casting positive obligation upon it. We don’t find such conditions are fulfilled in respect of a private company carrying on a commercial activity of banking. A private body or a person may be amenable to writ jurisdiction only where it may become necessary to compel such body or association to enforce any statutory obligations or such obligations of public nature casting positive obligation upon it. We don’t find such conditions are fulfilled in respect of a private company carrying on a commercial activity of banking. Merely regulatory provisions to ensure such activity carried on by private bodies work within a discipline, do not confer any such status upon the company nor put any such obligation upon it which may be enforced through issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution…….” According to the learned counsel, the respondent Bank is also governed by the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India. But, as far as sanction of loan is concerned, the eligibility criteria fixed by the circular is only for receipt of application forms and thereafter, the Bank has to scrutinise the same before sanctioning the loan. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank relied on clause 7 of the circular dated 24. 2001, which is as hereunder: “Security: Upto Rs.2 lacs : No security Above Rs. 2 lacs: Collateral security equal to 100% of the loan amount or guarantee of third person known to bank for 100% of the loan amount.” According to the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, since the petitioner has secured only 56% marks, he is not a meritorious candidate so as to be eligible for sanctioning the loan amount. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on the order dated 13. 2009 passed by this Court in W.P. (MD) No. 1882 of 2009 wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court negatived the claim of a student, who secured 70% marks on the ground that he is not meritorious candidate. Relying on this judgment, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank would contend that when candidate, who had secured 70% marks was not considered as a meritorious candidate, the petitioner, who has not crossed even 65% cannot be termed as a meritorious candidate. Consequently, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for. 5. I have considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. 6. Consequently, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for. 5. I have considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. 6. As for as the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, relying on paragraph 33 of the judgment rendered in Writ Appeal No. 2245 of 2002, that a writ petition will not lie as against a private bank is concerned, in paragraph 33 of the said judgment, the Division Bench has observed as follows: “33. For the discussion held above, in our view, a private company carrying on banking business as a scheduled bank, cannot be termed as an institution or a company carrying on any statutory or public duty. A private body or a person may be amenable to writ jurisdiction only where it may become necessary to compel such body or association to enforce any statutory obligations or such obligations of public nature casting positive obligation upon it. We don’t find such conditions are fulfilled in respect of a private company carrying on a commercial activity of banking. Merely regulatory provisions to ensure such activity carried on by private bodies work within a discipline, do not confer any such status upon the company nor put any such obligation upon it which may be enforced through issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution…….” Here, it is the specific case of the petitioner that the respondent Bank is a load Bank in that area and it is executing the functions of Nationalised Bank. Apart from this, even according to the learned counsel for respondent Bank, the Bank has issued educational loans to students, which in my opinions, is a public duty. As per the above judgment, even private Banks and Institutions are amenable to writ jurisdiction under the following circumstances: 16…… “18. Apart from this, even according to the learned counsel for respondent Bank, the Bank has issued educational loans to students, which in my opinions, is a public duty. As per the above judgment, even private Banks and Institutions are amenable to writ jurisdiction under the following circumstances: 16…… “18. From the decisions referred to above, the position that emerges is that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against (i) the State (Government); (ii) an authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; (v) a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature; and (viii) a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function.” It is not the case of the respondent Bank that as a private Bank, it need not sanction educational loans and the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 also fairly conceded that the respondent Bank is governed by the Reserve Bank of India’s circular dated 24. 2001. In such circumstances, when the Reserve Bank of India has prescribed the minimum eligibility marks as 50% for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates, certainly, the respondent Bank cannot, on their own, prescribed any other condition or cut-off marks to be satisfied by the petitioner so as to become eligible for availing the educational loan. As far as educational loans are concerned, they are welfare measures to enable poor students to pursue their higher education with the assistance of loan facilities provided by the Banks. But, here is a case where the loan sought by the petitioner is rejected on wrong assumption and presumption and this cannot be accepted. 7. Yet another factor is when, even according to the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India is binding on the respondent Bank, overlooking the guidelines given therein, the respondent Bank cannot follow their own norms in the matter of sanction of educational loans. 7. Yet another factor is when, even according to the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India is binding on the respondent Bank, overlooking the guidelines given therein, the respondent Bank cannot follow their own norms in the matter of sanction of educational loans. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent Bank on clause 7 of the said circular will not be of any help to him since clause 7 deals only with the security to be furnished in the event of sanction of loans. Admittedly, when the petitioner has secured 56% marks, his claim has to be considered and it is not the case of the respondent Bank also that only to a limited extent, the case of students will be considered and that only in the order of merit list, educational loans will be sanctioned. In such circumstance, when the petitioner has got the eligibility as per the circular of the Reserve Bank of India, rejecting his claim by the impugned order is unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The respondent Bank is directed to sanction the educational loan to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Connected M.P. is closed.