Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. There is no appearance on behalf of the second respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the letter, dated 29.10.2010, issued by the first respondent, rejecting the request of the petitioner for the grant of educational loan. 3. The reason stated in the impugned letter issued by the first respondent is that the petitioner had failed in many papers and had completed the B.Com. course, in four years, completing the same instead of within the stipulated period of three years. It had also been stated that the petitioner had cleared S.S.C. only in the third attempt. Therefore, as the petitioner had not satisfied the criteria of merit, as per the scheme guidelines, the loan application submitted by the petitioner could not be considered. 4. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner, who is a scheduled caste candidate, having a B.Com. degree, had been selected and admitted by the second respondent College, in the M.B.A. course, only on merit, by way of an entrance examination. Therefore, it is not open to the first respondent Bank to reject the application of the petitioner on the ground that he was lacking in merit. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had also submitted that the M.B.A. course, in which the petitioner had been admitted, would get over in the month of October, 2012. Due to the rejection of the application of the petitioner for educational loan, he has been put under severe financial strain and he has not been able to concentrate in his studies. Since, the petitioner comes from a poor family background, he would not be in a position to satisfy the financial requirements of the second respondent College without the Bank loan, which he had applied for with the first respondent Bank. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent Bank had submitted that, as per the applicable guidelines, the Bank loan may be sanctioned, based on the merit of the students concerned. She had also submitted that the Bank loan cannot be sanctioned, as the petitioner had already paid the fees due to the second respondent college. 7. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent Bank had submitted that, as per the applicable guidelines, the Bank loan may be sanctioned, based on the merit of the students concerned. She had also submitted that the Bank loan cannot be sanctioned, as the petitioner had already paid the fees due to the second respondent college. 7. The learned counsel had further submitted that the reimbursement of the fees, already paid by the petitioner, cannot be considered after a period of three months. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court finds that the rejection of the application of the petitioner, by the first respondent Bank, is contrary to the guidelines issued to the Banks for the grant of educational loans. Further, it is also contrary to the Government Policy formulated for the grant of such loans. 9. It would not be open to the first respondent Bank to reopen the issue relating to the merit of the candidate concerned, once he had been admitted by the college concerned, in the preferred course. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has not been in a position to place that the guidelines, based on which the merit of the candidate would be tested. It would be totally arbitrary, if it is open to the Bank concerned to assess the merit of the candidate to apply for educational loan. 11. The marks obtained by the petitioner in the under graduate course was one of the reasons considered by the first respondent Bank for rejecting his application. It is not the case of the first respondent Bank that the petitioner had not performed well in the M.B.A. course, in which he had been admitted in the second respondent College. In such circumstances, the impugned letter of the first respondent, dated 29.10.2010, is quashed. The first respondent is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner and to sanction the educational loan, as per the prevailing guidelines, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In such circumstances, the impugned letter of the first respondent, dated 29.10.2010, is quashed. The first respondent is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner and to sanction the educational loan, as per the prevailing guidelines, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is for the petitioner to show, by way of production of a bonafide certificate, issued by the second respondent College, that he is continuing to be a student of the M.B.A. course in which he had been admitted by the second respondent College. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.