Point of law: There cannot be any negative equality.

JUDGMENT :

S. MANIKUMAR, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.10.2021 in W.P. (C) No. 18622 of 2021, instant appeal is filed.

2. The writ petitioner/first respondent herein has filed the writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

(1) Declare that the petitioner is eligible and entitled to the benefits under Education Loan Repayment Support Scheme.

(2) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the 1st respondent to accept Ext.P3 application and process the same within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble court.

(3) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the 2nd respondent to accept application from 1st respondent under ELRS Scheme and process the same in accordance with directions contains Ext.P1.

(4) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the 1st respondent to close the Loan Account having Number 48115316854708 in the name of petitioner under ELRS Scheme.

3. The State opposed the reliefs sought for on the grounds inter-alia that as per Ext.P1 guidelines of Education Loan Repayment Support Scheme, the first respondent/writ petitioner is not eligible, in view of clause 2(c) of the guidelines.

4. Nevertheless, taking note of the contents in Annexure R1(A) dated 07.06.2018 and Annexure R1(B) communication dated 27.07.2019 clarifying that the final merit quota means that admission secured through a competitive examination or based on marks obtained in the qualifying Board Examination and also of the fact that the student named in Ext. P6 certificate was granted the benefit of the scheme, the writ court vide judgment dated 21.10.2021 held as follows:

“Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make a fresh application for the benefit under Ext.P1 Scheme. If the petitioner makes such an application, the 1st respondent-Bank shall process the application and forward the same to the 2nd respondent. On receipt of such application from the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same as per the provisions of Ext.P1 Scheme and take a decision in the matter taking into consideration the Scheme as it existed on 01.06.2018, when the petitioner made his application originally.”

5. Being aggrieved, instant appeal is filed on the grounds inter-alia that the writ court ought to have found that as per Annexure R1(A) and R1(B), the writ petitioner is not entitled for the benefits under the scheme.

6. Mr. K.P. Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader contended that the learned single Judge failed to consider the fact that as per Annexure R1(B), merit quota means admission through a competitive examination or based on marks obtained in the qualifying Board Examination at a substantially reduced fee on the basis of a mandate from the Government that certain number of seats be reserved for giving admission at a substantially reduced fee.

7. He further contended that as per Annexure R1(B), financial support under the scheme cannot be provided to education loans sanctioned to the students who had secured admission in Self Financing Colleges at a higher fee, even though the admission was by conducting a test or examination by the college.

8. Learned Senior Government Pleader states that the learned single Judge ought to have found that the writ petitioner studied in a private Self Financing College and admission was through an entrance test conducted by the college itself which is not considered as a meritorious selection process.

9. He further contended that the judgment of the learned single Judge is against the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. N.R. Parmar, (2012) 13 SCC 340 and that it is a settled proposition that the clarificatory order of an earlier enactment is usually held retrospective and there is no question of it having operation independent of the scheme.

10. In support of the above contentions, Mr. K.P. Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader, invited our attention to the applicability of the scheme as mentioned