Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 01.09.2014 in W.P.(C)No.20561 of 2013.

2. The writ petition was filed by the respondent herein praying for a direction to the respondent Bank to sanction the education loan sought by the petitioner and disburse the amount in accordance with the fee structure shown as per Ext.P2. The respondent shall be referred to hereinafter as writ petitioner.

3. After completing the High Secondary course, the petitioner has applied for B.Sc Nursing Course before the National College of Nursing, Bangalore which is affiliated to the Rajeev Gandhi University of Health Services and approved by the Indian Nursing Council, New Delhi. The duration of the course is 4 years. Petitioner was selected under merit quota and her admission number was 15. Ext.P1 Eligibility Certificate indicates that the petitioner has got 88 marks for Physics, 92 marks for Chemistry and 83 marks for Biology, out of 100 marks and stood as rank No.18. An application was given to the Bank for sanction of educational loan of Rs.3,30,000/-. The Bank did not sanction the loan. Hence the writ petition was filed. In the writ petition also the Bank had put in appearance but no statement or counter affidavit was filed. When the writ petition was taken on 01.09.2014, the learned Single Judge, noticing the fact that matter is pending for the last one year and no statement has been filed, issued a direction to the Bank to sanction the loan. It is useful to quote paragraph 2 of the judgment which is to the following effect:

"Though this matter is pending for the last one year, no statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent Bank. Therefore, there shall be a direction tot he respondent Bank to disburse bank loan to the petitioner as per Ext.P2 and also by taking note of the eligibility condition in Ext.P4. Needful shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment."

4. Learned counsel for the appellant Bank submits that the Bank could not file its statement in the writ petition as the matter was earlier adjourned at the instance of the petitioner for challenging the guidelines. It is submitted that, 21.07.2014 was the first date of hearing and hence the matter could not be considered on merits. In the appeal, the Bank has now brought on record the guidelines for admission which is filed as Annexure A dated 28.05.2012. The learned Single Judge has not adverted to the guidelines specifically, hence we deem it appropriate to consider the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant on merits.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ petitioner was not admitted through any Entrance Test nor has secured 65% marks in the qualifying academic year examination, hence she was not eligible for loan. He further submits that the Bank has already communicated the petitioner by letter dated 20.03.2013 that she has not fulfilled the criteria and her case cannot be considered on merit. The Bank further stated that if the applicant provides suitable collateral security of not less than 150%, the bank may consider her case.

6. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records. It is useful to quote the revised model scheme on educational loans which has been issued by the Bank on 28.05.2012. The learned counsel has referred to Clause I(d) and I(e) of the Scheme, which read as under:

"(I) Revised Model Scheme on Educational Loans for Higher Studies in India and Abroad (2011).

(d) Should have secured admission to a higher education course in recognised institutions in India or Abroad through Entrance Test/Merit Based Selection process after completion of HSC (10 plus 2 or equivalent).

(e) In case where admission is not through common entrance test and the marks secured in the qualifying examination is the only criteria adopted, the minimum cut off marks should be 65% in aggregate i