Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2817 (MAD)

S. Kavitha v. Manager, Ambur

2013-08-02

M.JAICHANDREN

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the impugned letter, dated 1.3.2013, issued by the respondent and to direct the respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for educational loan, for pursuing her diploma training course in General Nursing and Midwifery. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner belongs to a schedule caste community. Her parents are employed as agricultural labourers. The petitioner had completed her plus two course and had joined the diploma training course in General Nursing and Midwifery, in Noorie education institutions, in Kolar District, Karnataka state, for the academic year 20122013. 4. It has been further stated that the said course is for a period of 3½ years. The total amount of fees to be paid for the said course is Rs.1,38,000/-. As the parents of the petitioner were not in a position to pay the fees, the petitioner had approached the District Collector, Vellore, requesting for educational loan. The District Collector, Vellore, had forwarded the loan application to the Punjab National Bank, Ambur Branch, the respondent herein, along with a letter, dated 26.11.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner had also submitted the relevant certificates and the necessary records to the respondent, on 18.12.2012. 5. The petitioner has further submitted that, by the impugned letter, dated 1.3.2013, the respondent had informed the petitioner that her loan application had been rejected, as she had got her admission for the diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery course through the management quota. She had also been informed that only meritorious students, who had got admission under the management quota, shall be considered to be eligible for the educational loan, as per the guidelines applicable for the granting of the educational loan. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent stating that the sanctioning of the educational loan is based on the merits of the students and the status of the college or the university in which the candidate is undergoing the course concerned. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent stating that the sanctioning of the educational loan is based on the merits of the students and the status of the college or the university in which the candidate is undergoing the course concerned. More over, discretionary powers are vested with the Bank concerned for the granting of the loans and it would not be open to the petitioner to force the respondent Bank to release the loan, without adhering to the applicable rules and regulations. 7. It has been further stated that the corporate office of the respondent Bank had issued a circular, in Circular RBD No.09/2010, dated 1.2.2010, directing its branches to grant educational loan only to the meritorious students. Since, the petitioner has not fulfilled the necessary requirements, the respondent Bank is not in a position to grant the loan, as prayed for by the petitioner. 8. It has also been stated that the Indian Banks Association has also issued a circular, bearing No.CE/159, dated 30.8.2011, relating to the grant of educational loans for higher studies. In the present case, the petitioner had not secured good marks and her admission in the Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery course has been given, under the management quota. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for her educational loan cannot be accepted. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank had relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 20.4.2012, in W.A. (MD) No.1629 of 2011 (batch), (A.KASINATHAN Vs. THE BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK, MADURAI),in KASINATHAN Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK, MADURAI, in support of his contention. 10. It is noted that the petitioner, who belongs to a schedule caste community, had joined the Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery course, in Noorie Education Institutions, in Kolar District, Karnataka state for the academic year 2012-2013. The said course is for a period of 3 ½ years, including the internship programme. 11. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and in view of the records available, and on considering the decision cited supra, it is noted that the case of the petitioner has been recommended by the District Collector, Vellore, in his letter, dated 26.11.2012. 11. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and in view of the records available, and on considering the decision cited supra, it is noted that the case of the petitioner has been recommended by the District Collector, Vellore, in his letter, dated 26.11.2012. However, the respondent Bank had issued the impugned order, dated 1.3.2013, stating that the petitioner would not be eligible for the grant of the educational loan, as she had been admitted in the Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery course, under the management quota. No other reasons had been stated for the rejection of the request of the petitioner for the grant of the educational loan. Thus, it is clear that the respondent Bank had not considered the other aspects relating to the granting of educational loan, based on the application of the petitioner, dated 11.12.2012. 12. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the respondent, dated 1.3.2013, is set aside and the respondent Bank is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner, for educational loan, based on her application, dated 11.12.2012, and to grant the same, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the petitioner is found to be eligible for the said loan, as per the guidelines issued by the Indian Banks Association and in view of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court cited supra. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.