2015 Supreme(Ker) 564
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ASHOK BHUSHAN AND A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JJ.
THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA GRAMIN BANK - APPELLANT
VS.
RAJENDRAN P. - RESPONDENT
W.A. No. 1123 of 2015
Decided On : 15.6.2015.
Advocate Appeared:
FOR THE APPELLANT : SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, SRI.K.M.ANEESH
FOR THE RESPONDENT: SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH
The eligibility for an education loan under the merit quota for a specific course is determined by the admission process and the authorization of the institution conducting the entrance examination.
Headnote:
education loan - eligibility for loan - merit quota - Clause 1.2.2. - BPT Course - Andhra Bank v. Reshma Syam (2014 (4) KLT 855) - entrance examination - Government approved agency
Fact of the Case:
The 2nd petitioner applied for an education loan for the BPT course after being selected in the merit quota. The bank refused the loan stating that the admission was under the management quota and the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria.
Finding of the Court:
The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner was entitled to the loan. The Division Bench judgment in Andhra Bank v. Reshma Syam was relied upon.
Issues: The main issue was whether the 2nd petitioner was eligible for an education loan under the merit quota for the BPT course.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the 2nd petitioner was admitted in the merit quota based on the entrance examination conducted by the college, and the college was authorized to conduct the examination by the Government/Government approved agency.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the bank was allowed one month's time to comply with the directions of the Single Judge.
Ashok Bhushan, CJ
Heard learned counsel for appellants as well as learned counsel for respondents/writ petitioners.
2. This writ appeal has been filed against judgment dated 25th of February, 2015 passed in W.P (C) No. 2198/15. The 2nd petitioner had applied for education loan on the basis of the selection in the merit quota for the course of BPT. The test was conducted on 30th June, 2015 in KTG College of Physiotherapy. On the basis of the said selection, 2nd petitioner has made an application for loan to the Bank. 2nd petitioner submitted certificate from the College dated 30th of June, 2014 and other materials to prove that he was declared selected and got admission. The Bank did not sanction the education loan to the 2nd petitioner. Hence, the writ petition was filed praying for following reliefs.
"a) declare that this 2nd petitioner is eligible to get educational loan from the respondent Bank.
b) direct the respondents to disburse the educational loan to the 2nd petitioner enabling him to continue BPT course without any break.
3. A counter statement was filed on behalf of the Bank where it was stated that in the scheme which is applicable to Kerala Gramin Bank, that is Annexure R1(a) circular dated 19/11/2013, the admission of the 2nd petitioner cannot be treated as a merit admission. It is submitted that admission was taken outside the State of Kerala which has to be treated under management quota. It was further stated that 2nd petitioner has not secured 55% in Physics and Chemistry and more over the total aggregate marks is below 60% and hence not eligible for educational loan.
4. Learned Single Judge heard the writ petition and relying on the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Andhra Bank v. Reshma Syam (2014 (4) KLT 855) allowed the writ petition. It was held that the second petitioner had taken part in the admission test conducted by educational institution and secured admission under the merit quota. Hence, the 2nd petitioner was entitled for loan. Writ petition was allowed against which this writ appeal has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants referring to Clause 1.2.2. submits that the admission for course outside Kerala is deemed as management quota admission. Hence, in any view of the matter, petitioners were not entitled for the loan. He submits that in the Division Bench judgment in Andhra Bank (supra), there was no such clause as is now interpreted in the Annexure to circular dated 19/11/13. He submits that Bank did not commit any error in refusing educational loan and learned Single Judge committed error in directing for sanctioning of the loan. Learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners submitted that a certificate was issued by KTG College of Physiotherapy that 2nd petitioner has been admitted to first year BPT Course for academic year 2014-15 and that he was selected through entrance examination conducted by the College under merit quota. It is submitted that the College was fully authorised to conduct the examination by the Government/Government approved agency. Hence, as examination was by Government approved agencies, it cannot be said that College was not authorised to conduct the examination.
6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. Before we proceed to enter into the respective submissions of the parties, it is useful to refer to the eligibility certificate issued by College, Exs.P6 and P7. Ext.P7 certificate states thus;
"This is to certify that Mr.Shine Raj. R S/o Rajendran, has been admitted to 1st year B.P.T. Course for the academic year 2014-15. He has selected through entrance exam conducted by the college under merit quota."
8. From the materials brought on record by the petitioners, it is clear that 2nd petitioner was admitted in the merit quota, he having appeared in the entrance examination conducted for BPT Course in their institution. Ext.P6, eligibility certificate, issued by th