JUDGMENT M. VENUGOPAL, J. 1. Heard both sides. 2. According to the Petitioner, his son Vetrivel after completing his S.S.L.C. (10th standard) successfully being passionate about Mechanical Engineering studies, he joined Diploma in Mechanical Engineering at Sai Jothi Polytechnic College, Eliyarpathy, Madurai and is pursing his second year studies. 3. Although the Petitioner was hesitant to admit his son considering his financial position, his friends and relatives persuaded him that the educational loan is being issued by the Government through nationalized banks and thereafter the Petitioner allowed his son to join the course. Diploma in Mechanical Engineering is a three year course and fees structure of the college is Rs. 41,500/- per year. Inasmuch as he being a Washerman and the sole bread-winner of the family and the annual income is only Rs. 24,000/- and borrowed money from various places and managed to pay the first year fees, but within a short time the Petitioner's debtors demanded to repay the same with interest. 4. He approached the Second Respondent/Bank with a representation for grant of educational loan and after coming to know that he is a Washerman and the sole bread-winner of the family, there is no proper response. In the meantime, his son was not in a position to sit for exams. The Second Respondent had not considered the Petitioner's educational loan application and hence he was constrained to approach the District Collector, Madurai through his representation, dated 29.09.2014 who in-turn forwarded the same to the Lead Bank/Canara Bank, Madurai District for necessary action and by means of proceedings, dated 30.09.2014, the Canara Bank had forwarded the same to the Second respondent the Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Koodal Nagar Branch, Madurai for necessary action. 5. On 9.10.2014, he along with his son approached the Second Respondent with the fond hope that his grievance would have been answered affirmatively but to his dismay, despite the directions to consider his application for educational loan, the Second Respondent turned a blind eye and all his efforts to obtain the educational loan ended in failure. He also sent several representations and the last one being on 29.09.2014. The respondent for the reasons best known to it not considered his son's educational loan application and the future of his son is at stake. 6. He also sent several representations and the last one being on 29.09.2014. The respondent for the reasons best known to it not considered his son's educational loan application and the future of his son is at stake. 6. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 that the Petitioner had not submitted any loan application to the Second Respondent/Bank and as such, the Bank is not in a position to sanction the loan in question to the Petitioner. 7. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner had joined the Diploma in Mechanical Engineering at Sai Jothi Polytechnic College, Eliyarpathy, Madurai during the academic year 2013-2016 and is pursuing his second year. The course is for a period of three years. According to the Petitioner, the fees structure of the college is Rs. 41,500/-. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner had joined Diploma course in Mechanical Engineering in the aforesaid college in the Management quota. In this connection, this Court very pertinently points out that once the Petitioner's son's admission for eligibility is shown and if a candidate is selected by any one of the modes of selection, then it is not open to a Bank to refuse loan facility for education purpose and that too, to a needy and deserving candidate like the Petitioner's son. 8. It is to be noted at best that the bank can insist upon whether the individual/person is admitted in a course approved by a competent body and when the college in question is affiliated to a University which conducts examination, then ordinarily there may not be any impediment in law for the Bank to sanction the educational loan sought for by the Petitioner. 9. One cannot ignore a very vital fact that the schemes and policies are framed by Central Government and the benefit should reach the deserving persons. In reality, a Bank is not entitled to take a lopsided/Pedantic or hyper technical approach or to harp on technicalities in defeating the purpose of the scheme introduced by the Central and State Governments. 10. In the instant case, if the bank has not sanctioned the educational loan to the Petitioner, then it will infringe upon Article 14 of the Constitution of India which prohibits discriminatory treatment to a citizen. 11. 10. In the instant case, if the bank has not sanctioned the educational loan to the Petitioner, then it will infringe upon Article 14 of the Constitution of India which prohibits discriminatory treatment to a citizen. 11. Also in the order dated 16.11.2007 in W.P. No. 333933 of 2007, it is observed that even if a student fails in a particular subject, then it is not a disqualification for him to obtain the loan in question. 12. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the Petitioner has sought a relief for sanctioning and disbursing of educational loan to his son Vetrivel by considering his representation, date 29.9.2014 by the Second Respondent/Bank, this Court in the interest of justice, fair play, Equity, good conscience and even as a matter of prudence directs the Second Respondent/The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Koodal nagar Branch, Madurai to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 29.9.2014 for the sanction and disbursement of educational loan for his son Vetrivel within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if the Second Respondent/Bank is desirous of obtaining any fresh loan application from the Petitioner, then the Second Respondent/Bank is directed to furnish a copy of the educational loan application to the Petitioner on requisite charges, if any, and upon receipt of such application, the Petitioner is directed to fill up the same in all aspects and submit the same to the Second Respondent/Bank, which in-turn is directed to sanction and disburse the educational loan as per the order passed by this Court in W.A. No. 144 of 2009, dated 12.10.1999. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.