ORDER : Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents No.1 to 4. 4. According to the Petitioner, she had joined the B.Sc Nursing Course in Chithirai College of Nursing at No.36-E, Kuruvikaran Salai, Madurai - 625009 in the academic year 2015-2016, for four years B.Sc Nursing Course. Her parents are agricultural daily wage labourers living below the poverty line and are having four daughters(including the Petitioner). She was selected for B.Sc Nursing Course through counselling and then she secured admission in the Chithirai College of Nursing at Madurai. She is living below the poverty line and not able to pay the education fees for the four years B.Sc Nursing Course. Therefore, she had submitted her Education Loan Application, dated 30.1.2016 to the Third Respondent for sanctioning of education loan to continue her education. 5. The stand of the Petitioner is that the Fourth Respondent/The Principal, Chithirai College of Nursing, Madurai had collected a sum of Rs.20,000/- from her on 7.12.2015 towards tuition fees. When she was pursing her first year B.Sc Nursing Course, suddenly, the Fourth Respondent/The Principal, Chithirai College of Nursing, 36-E, Kuruvikaran Salai, Madurai-625009 sent her out from the College as the prescribed fee of Rs.1,05,000/- for the first year 2015-16 was not paid as per the College order, dated 4.12.2015. Although she had repeatedly requested the Third Respondent/The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Mallankinar, Virudhunagar District in person and took up the matter to the higher authorities, but no action was action till date. Hence she was running from Pillar to post and she finds it difficult to get the loan sanctioned from Third Respondent/Bank. 6. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner is the first person in her family, who is undertaking her first graduate course. She had obtained 'No Objection Certificate' from the competent authority to say that she is the first person in her family to pursue the first graduate course. She is eligible to get tuition fees as per G.O.(Ms)No.85, Higher Education(J2) Department, dated 16.4.2010. She had obtained 'No Objection Certificate' from the competent authority to say that she is the first person in her family to pursue the first graduate course. She is eligible to get tuition fees as per G.O.(Ms)No.85, Higher Education(J2) Department, dated 16.4.2010. Although she is exempted from the payment of tuition fees as per the aforesaid Government order, the Fourth Respondent/College had collected a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 7.12.2015(vide Bill Receipt No.1703, dated 7.12.2015) in contravention of G.O.(Ms)No.85, Higher Education(J2) Department, dated 16.4.2010. 7. The principal grievance of the Petitioner is that the Third Respondent/Bank sought to sanction the education loan of Rs.1,05,000/- for the first year 2015-2016 to her, so as to enable her to join the on going regular Revision Classes for appearing in their annual examination scheduled to be held on 17.8.2016. 8. At this juncture, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks in aid of the order of this Court, dated 3.11.2010 in W.P.No.18935 of 2010 between K.Vijayakandhan vs. The Manager, Canara Bank, Murugankudi Branch, Murugankudi and post, Thittakudi Taluk, Cuddalore District, whereby and where-under at para 6, it has been observed as under: ''6. In order to consider the plea of the petitioners, it will be relevant to refer to clause 15 of the Revised Model Educational Loan Scheme For Pursuing Higher Studies in India and Abroad. Clause 15 reads as follows:- 15. OTHER CONDITIONS: a. Meritorious Students Banks which wish to support highly and exceptionally meritorious/deserving students without security may delegate such powers to a fairly higher level authority. b. Multiple Loans In case of receipt of application for more than one loan for student borrower from a family, the 'family' as a unit has to be taken into account for considering the loan and security taken in relation to the total quantum of finance disbursed, subject to margin and repaying capacity of the parent/student. c. Minimum Age xxxx d. Change of address xxx e. Top up loans Banks may consider top up loans to students pursuing further studies within the overall eligibility limit, with appropriate re-schedulement, subject to taking required security. f. Co-obligator xxx No due certificate No due certificate need not be insisted upon as a pre-condition for considering educational loan. However, banks may obtain a declaration/an affidavit confirming that no loans are availed from other banks. f. Co-obligator xxx No due certificate No due certificate need not be insisted upon as a pre-condition for considering educational loan. However, banks may obtain a declaration/an affidavit confirming that no loans are availed from other banks. Disposal Application Loan applications have to be disposed of within a period of 15 days to 1 month, but not exceeding the time norms stipulated for disposing of loan applications under priority sector lending. Flexibility in terms In order to bring flexibility in terms like eligibility, margin, security norms, banks may consider relaxation in the norms on a case- to-case basis delegating the power to a fairly higher level authority." "10. The emphasis is that no deserving/meritorious students of this country should be denied the opportunity to pursue higher education for want of financial support. The first respondent bank cannot deny the petitioners, their legitimate right to get educational loan under the scheme if they qualify and are eligible. If the bank adopt this narrow interpretation it will be retrograde and go against the State's endeavour to promote education. The scheme is intended to improve the human capital of the nation and the banks are given a role in the development of the human resources of our country. 11. The emphasis in the scheme is that the bank should adopt a customer friendly method to cater the needs of the meritorious students. In this background, the two petitioners are justified in approaching this Court for a direction to the bank to issue the loan application form. The respondents bank ought to have given the same promptly and immediately. The attitude of the Bank should be positive and encourage students to avail education loan and pursue their education. The role of the Bank Manager in rural India is even more important to promote this scheme. 12. Considering the laudable purpose of this scheme, the Chairman of all the Nationalized Banks/Commercial Banks should suitably instruct the Bank Managers, especially at the rural areas to ensure that as and when eligible and poor students seek application form and apply for educational loan, their case should be considered sympathetically and in a customer friendly manner to promote the cause of education and nation building as the scheme is intended to fill up the vacuum that the State is feeling difficult to fill. The education loan should not be denied on hyper technicalities. The education loan should not be denied on hyper technicalities. The authority should not forget that it is because of education that he is holding the post of Manager. The educated youth are the bulwark of the nation. They are the building blocks of the nation. If their eyes are opened by proper education, it will benefit our country and uplift the family. Education is still a far dream to millions in this country and that is why the scheme has used the words "endeavour of all" in the "Introduction" to the Scheme. 13. The Bank Managers should not develop retrograde attitude and deny education loan arbitrarily. They have to promote the cause of education, which will empower youth of our nation. 14. Keeping the above principle in mind the respondents are directed to issue the loan application form immediately on production of a copy of this order and process the application for grant loan to the students on complying with other formalities. The writ petitions stand ordered as above. No costs." 4. The above decision will squarely applies to the fact of this case. In view of the above decision, the respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 31.7.2010 and recommendation made by the Lead Bank, Cuddalore, for grant of educational loan to the petitioner on complying with other formalities immediately. The writ petition is ordered as above. No costs.'' 9. In this connection, it is not out of place for this Court to worth recall and recollect the order passed on 27.7.2016 in W.P(MD)No.6367 of 2016, between Kumar vs. The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Alagarkoil, Melur, Madurai District and another, wherein at Para 11 it is observed as under: ''11. The writ petition is ordered as above. No costs.'' 9. In this connection, it is not out of place for this Court to worth recall and recollect the order passed on 27.7.2016 in W.P(MD)No.6367 of 2016, between Kumar vs. The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Alagarkoil, Melur, Madurai District and another, wherein at Para 11 it is observed as under: ''11. Apart from that, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents/Bank cites an order of the Learned Single Judge of this Court dated 1.11.2011 in W.P(MD)No.9382 of 2011 between V.Palanisamy vs. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Vangal Branch, Karur District, wherein, it is observed at para 4 as under : ''4.Though the learned counsel for the Petitioner heavily relied upon a judgment of this Court in G.Dhivyha vs. The Branch Manager, Canara Bank and others reported in 2011 (1) CWC 843 that the loan application of the co- obligation cannot be a relevant factor and that the bank should not confuse itself with the loan availed by the father for his business purpose with reference to the loan to be availed by his son or daughter for the educational loan. However, this Court do not rely upon this judgment since no principle of law was laid down on this issue. It must be noted that though the scheme for grant of educational loan is considered by the Government of India and the banks were encouraged to grant such loan, such loans could be sanctioned only in terms of scheme framed by the bank and no writ petition will lie to enforce the loan application contrary to the scheme framed by any bank.'' 10. There is no dispute to the fact that the Reserve Bank of India/Central Bank of India is empowered to issue necessary directions considering the welfare and interest to public at large. As a matter of fact, the circulars/instructions issued by the Reserve Bank of India would govern those squarely who come within its domain. Really speaking 'Education Loan Scheme' of Indian Banks Association is approved by the Government and Circulars of the Banks through proper channel. One cannot ignore the very vital fact that Article 21 of the Constitution of India enjoins the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by Law, determine. One cannot ignore the very vital fact that Article 21 of the Constitution of India enjoins the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by Law, determine. Article 41 speaks of '' Right to Work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases - The state shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education. 11. Apart from that, Article 45 of the Constitution of India relates to yearly childhood care and education to children below the age of six years. More importantly, Article 46 of the Constitution of India states as under: ''The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.'' 12. It cannot be gain-said that 'Education' is a National Wealth and that the Respondents No.2 and 3/Banks is to follow the scheme and policy framed by the Central Government and the benefit should reach the deserving poor and needy and meritorious persons. If the Respondents/Bank are allowed to adopt a approach that would defeat the scheme introduced by the Central and State Governments, then, such act of the Respondents/Bank may border or infringe upon the ingredients of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 13. Be that as it may, as far as the present case is concerned, the Petitioner is seeking only the education loan of Rs.1,05,000/- from the Third Respondent/Bank, which is still within the limit of Rs.4 lakhs upto which, no security is required. However, if the Bank require, the parents /co-applicants for the prospective loan of Rs.1,05,000/- in the instant case on hand in respect of the Petitioner, the Third Respondent/Bank is at liberty to inform the parents accordingly. 14. However, if the Bank require, the parents /co-applicants for the prospective loan of Rs.1,05,000/- in the instant case on hand in respect of the Petitioner, the Third Respondent/Bank is at liberty to inform the parents accordingly. 14. Considering the fact that the petitioner is to appear for her first year annual examination which is to commence on 17.8.2016 and also this Court taking note of the fact that her parents are agricultural daily wage labourers and that they are living below the poverty line and also that she being the first person who is undertaking her first graduate course, at this stage, this Court comes to a resultant conclusion (of course based on the facts and circumstances of the present case which floated on the surface) that she is in need of education loan for the first year 2015-2016 a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- for her B.Sc Nursing Course and taking note of all these factors, at this stage, simpliciter, this Court, in the interest of justice, fair play, equity, good conscience and even as a matter of prudence directs the Third Respondent/Bank to consider the application of the Petitioner, dated 20.7.2016 in a pragmatic, purposeful, meaningful and realistic manner for sanctioning of education loan within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order(of course in accordance with the policy of the Central Government as well as the Scheme framed by the Reserve Bank of India) as held by the Division Bench Judgement of this Court in W.A.No.144 of 2009, dated 12.10.2009 and to dispose of the same bearing in mind the sympathetic plight of the Petitioner and educational interest and well-being of the study career of the Petitioner. 15. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.