Ashok Bhushan, J.

1. These writ petitions were being heard by the learned Single Judge, who, by a common order dated 30.7.2015 directed the writ petitions to be placed before the Honourable Chief Justice, so as to obtain orders as to whether the above cases could be posted before a Division Bench. Thus, these writ petitions came to be placed before this Bench for hearing.

2. All the writ petitions consist of similar issues of facts and law and hence, all have been heard together. W.P.(C) No. 17271 of 2015 is being treated as the leading writ petition and the references and pleadings in the aforesaid writ petition shall be sufficient to decide all the writ petitions.

Facts:-

W.P.(C) No. 17271 of 2015

The petitioners, who are three in number passed their Higher Secondary Examination in March 2014. They applied for B.Sc. Nursing in Rev. Noorunnissa College of Nursing, Andersonpet, Karnataka State. The College conducted a selection test, on the basis of which, all the petitioners were given admission in the first year B.Sc. Nursing 2014-15 batch. The petitioners submitted an application for grant of educational loan to the 2nd respondent, State Bank of Travancore (for short 'SBT'), Pattanakkadu Branch, Alappuzha. In the application submitted by the petitioners, they have given all necessary details as required in the educational loan proposal, including the marks obtained by them in the Higher Secondary School. The SBT, by letter dated 19.12.2014, informed the first petitioner that since he has got admission under the Management Quota, he has not secured minimum marks of 60% in the qualifying subjects and in aggregate for eligibility as required under the bank's educational loan policy and therefore, he was not eligible for educational loan. An identical letter of the same date was issued to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners informing the rejection of their application for educational loan. The petitioners also sent a complaint to the Reserve Bank of India (for short 'RBI'), which was forwarded by the RBI to the concerned branches of SBT. The RBI, by letter dated 16.1.2015, informed one of the petitioners that since she has not secured 60% marks in the qualifying examination as well as in the qualifying subjects, which is mandatory for those students, who have got admission under the Management Quota, the action taken by the SBT was as per the extant guidelines on the subject. The petitioners, aggrieved by the rejection of their application for education loan has filed the writ petition, seeking for following reliefs:-

"(i) to quash Exts. P7 to P9 orders passed by the 2nd respondent by the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction.

(ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to disburse the loan amount to the petitioners within a short period fixed by this Hon'ble Court to enable them to continue their studies."

W.P.(C) No. 17272 of 2015

The petitioner passed the Higher Secondary Examination in March 2014 and took admission in B.Sc. Nursing in Rev. Noorunnissa College of Nursing on the basis of the selection test conducted the College. The application submitted for educational loan was rejected by the 2nd respondent, SBT on the ground that the petitioner had not secured 60% marks in the qualifying subjects. The petitioner sent a complaint to the RBI, who communicated the petitioner that the action of the SBT was in accordance with the extant guidelines. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court praying for a mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to disburse the loan amount to the petitioner.

W.P.(C) No. 17313 of 2015

The petitioner passed the Higher Secondary Examination in March 2014 and applied for B.E. Mechanical Engineering in Dr. Thimmayya Institute of Technology, Oorgaum, Kolar Gold Fields, Karnataka State. The petitioner was directed to appear for a selection test conducted by the institution and he was declared selected. He got admission in the first year B.E. Mechanic