The main legal point established in the judgment is the emphasis on merit-based selection process, employability, and financial discipline in extending educational loans, along with the discretion of banks in laying down the terms for such loans.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. The petitioners in all the writ petitions are students, carrying on different courses out side the State but, in affiliated colleges of Universities approved by the University Grants Commission (U.G.C.) who assert their entitlement to get educational loans from the respondent Bank. The admitted facts are that the petitioners, all of them have been admitted to the various colleges under the Management Quota, but however allegedly by virtue of an admission test carried on by the respective colleges.

2. The petitioners assert their claim on the basis of the judgments of this Court interpreting the educational loan scheme framed by the Indian Banks Association (IBA) in Jiby John vs. State Bank of India, 2011 (2) KLT 922, Runa Varghese vs. Federal Bank 2014 (2) KLT 764, Andhra Bank vs. Reshma Syam, 2014 (4) KLT 855 and Branch Manager, Kerala Gramin Bank, Kollam and Another vs. Rajendran P. and Another, 2015 (3) KHC 561 (DB). The respondent Bank however seeks a re-look into the terms of the scheme, as modified over the years, as has been permitted by a Division Bench of this Court in an unreported decision dated 02.02.2015 in W.A. No. 1147 of 2014.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners as also the various learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Bank.

4. Since, the question to be decided is common and the petitioners more or less stand on the same footing, W.P. (C) No. 11421 of 2015 is taken as the lead case. The petitioner therein is a graduate student of Physiotherapy. The learned Counsel for the petitioners bases his contention on the notification of Government of India at Ext.P2, which modified the "Model Educational Loan Scheme for pursuing higher education in India and abroad." The decisions aforecited are all relating to the aforesaid scheme.

5. Runa Varghese (supra) was concerned with the rejection of a loan application on almost similar circumstances for non-satisfaction of the eligibility criteria set by the Bank, which required a minimum percentage of marks in the qualifying examination. The Circular produced at Ext.P2 dated 28.04.2001 came up for consideration and it was found that since the petitioner had gone through a selection process before getting admission as is evident by a score sheet, produced therein, and the Institution being approved by the Apex Body i.e. the Indian Nursing Council, the rejection on the ground that the student could not get 65% marks in the qualifying examinations, was found to be illegal.

6. In Jiby John (supra) a learned Single Judge considered the question of whether the Bank could refuse educational loan for reason only that the student has another Bank nearer to his residence. The question was found against the Bank, but however that does not arise herein.

7. In Reshma Syam (supra), the rejection was on the ground that the student was not admitted to the course through an Entrance Test/Merit Test Selection Process. The Institution admittedly was one recognised by the academic body and it was also admitted that the petitioner was not admitted through a Common Entrance Test. Therein also the student was found to have been admitted through an Entrance Test, of the college, but not the Common Entrance Test resorted to by the Government. Since, the selection process was based on a test, it was found that the minimum 65% criteria in the qualifying examination could not be applied. Therein, the Circular referred to was of 28.05.2012. Similar was the finding in Rajendran P. (supra) by the very same Division Bench following the earlier decision, which referred to a Circular applicable to Kerala Gramin Bank dated 19.11.2012.

8. Yet another Division Bench in the unreported decision, noticed the decisions in Runa Varghese (supra) and Reshma Syam (supra) as also two decisions of the Madras High Court in A. Kasinathan vs. The Branch Manager, Canara Bank Madurai and Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank vs. A. Ravi [Laws (MAD)-2014-6-269]. The Divisio