Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4097
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN
S. Maran
Versus
The Branch Manager State Bank of Travancore
W.P.NO.556 OF 2010
Decided On : 16-09-2010
For the Petitioner:C. Prakasam, Advocate.
For the Respondent:K. Sankaran, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the denial of educational loan to a deserving candidate based on discriminatory marks criteria is unjust and against the constitutional goal of promoting educational and economic interests of weaker sections. The court emphasized the right to education under Article 21 and the need to consider eligibility for admission and the selection process for granting education loans.
Headnote:
Educational Loan - Scheduled Caste - Model Educational Loan Scheme of Indian Banks Association, Circular dated 03.06.2008 of the Head Office of the State Bank of Travancore - Tamil Nadu Government prescribed marks for admission to B.E. Course - Constitutional goal set out in Article 46 of the Constitution - Right to education under Article 21 - Eligibility for admission and selection process - Denial of educational loan to deserving candidate - Judgment in 2010 (6) MLJ 47 - Judgment in W.P.No.33933 of 2007 - Judgment in 2004 (2) CTC 227
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste student, sought an educational loan for his B.E. course. The respondent denied the loan citing the petitioner's failure to obtain the prescribed marks. The petitioner argued that the marks prescribed by the respondent were not in line with the AICTE and Tamil Nadu Government's criteria for admission to the B.E. Course.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the denial of the educational loan to the petitioner based on the marks criteria was unjust and against the constitutional goal of promoting educational and economic interests of weaker sections. The court emphasized the right to education under Article 21 and held that once eligibility for admission is established, a candidate selected through any permitted mode should not be denied an education loan.
Issues: The main issue was the denial of educational loan to the petitioner based on the marks criteria set by the respondent, which was found to be discriminatory and against the constitutional objectives.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the denial of educational loan to a deserving candidate based on marks criteria was unjust and against the constitutional goal of promoting educational and economic interests of weaker sections. The court emphasized the right to education under Article 21 and the need to consider eligibility for admission and the selection process for granting education loans.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondent to sanction educational loan to the petitioner for his second year B.E. Course and also for the third and fourth year courses. The college was directed to reimburse the fees for the second year upon receipt of the sanctioned loan from the respondent bank.
The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. He passed Higher Secondary examinations in March 2008 and secured the following marks out of 200 in each subject:
Tamil - 129
English - 136
Physics -87
Chemistry - 91
Biology -118
Mathematics - 72
He joined B.E. (Computer Science) course in S.K.R. Engineering College, Agarmel, Poonamallee during 2008-2009. The course is of four years duration. He is the first person in his family to enter the portals of college education. According to him, he was not aware of the financial assistance being given by the Nationalized Banks. With great difficulty, he managed to pay the fees for the first year. On knowing that the Union of India has instructed the Banks to provide financial assistance for the purpose of education, he made an application to the respondent on 07.09.2009 seeking educational loan under the Gyan Jyothi Educational Loan Scheme. Thereafter, he visited the respondent Bank frequently. But there was no response from the respondent. It is stated that the petitioner issued legal notice to the respondent Bank and the same was of no use to him. The petitioner further stated that since the loan was not sanctioned, he was not able to pay the fees for the second year course. If he failed to pay the fees, he could not be permitted in the college and ultimately, he could not write the examinations. Therefore, he was forced to borrow money outside and paid the fees for the second year course.
2. The petitioner has now come up with the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondent to sanction educational loan to him.
3. Notice was ordered by this Court on 12.01.2010.
4. Heard Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Sankaran, learned counsel for the respondent.
5. The respondent filed counter affidavit. It is pleaded in the counter affidavit that the Gyan Jyothi Educational Loan Scheme provides for eligibility criteria for granting educational loan. As per the eligibility criteria, minimum marks of 50% for General Category and 45% for SC/ST category has been prescribed for sanctioning of educational loan. Since the petitioner failed to fulfill the eligibility criteria, he was not sanctioned loan.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent ought to have sanctioned loan. It is also submitted that the respondent did not pass any order either sanctioning the loan or refusing to grant loan. The respondent could not prescribe 45% marks for SC/ST students as eligible criteria to obtain educational loan, when both the AICTE and the Tamil Nadu Government prescribed a mere pass for SC/ST students for admission to B.E. Course.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the following decisions of this Court in support of his submission:
1) Minor D.Iniyan Gowtham, Rep. by his father and Natural Guardian R.Dhavamani Vs. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Finance Department, New Delhi and another in W.P.No.33933 of 2007 (decided on 111. 2007)
2) S.Saran Kumar Vs. Regional Manager, Karur Vysya Bank reported in 2010 (6) MLJ 47
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that the loan was not sanctioned to the petitioner as he did not obtain 45% of marks as required for sanctioning the loan. It is further submitted that the respondent Bank is bound by the Model Educational Loan Scheme of Indian Banks Association and also the circular dated 03.06.2008 of the Head Office of the State Bank of Travancore. According to the learned counsel, the Model Educational Loan Scheme of Indian Banks Association contemplates sanctioning of loan only for meritorious students. Since the petitioner is not a meritorious student, he is not eligible for loan. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank also submitted that the circular dated 03.06.2008 of the Head Office of the State Bank of Travancore prescribed 45% of marks for SC/ST category candidates to sanction the educational loan. In suppor
