D/L - 16

24/03/2025 Court. No. 28 S.Kundu WPA 26256 of 2024 Sampa Bhunia Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Achyut Basu, Ms. Punam Basu, Ms. Pritha Biswas, Mr. T. Ghoshal, Mr. A. Sengupta …for the petitioner.

Mr. Debashish Saha, Ms. Pinki Chakraborty …for the SBI.

Mr. Partha Ghosh, Mr. Madhu Jana …for the Union of India.

The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the bank to sanction educational loan to the petitioner. The writ petitioner relies on two orders of this Court one dated July 23, 2021 passed in WPA 11040 of 2021 and the other dated April 22, 2024 passed in WPA 660 of 2024.

The writ petitioner submits that in both the aforesaid cases this Court had been pleased to direct the bank to consider the request of the writ petitioners therein for sanction of loan and to dispose of such request by a reasoned order. The writ petitioner submits that in the instant case the bank has declined the petitioner’s request for loan citing low score in the risk scoring model which according to the petitioner is not a tenable reason.

The learned advocate representing the bank takes this Court through the Model Educational Loan Scheme for pursuing higher education in India and abroad and lays stress on the objective thereof (at page 15 of the writ petition).

Placing reliance on the Risk Scoring Model (in short RSM) of the writ petition annexed at page 34 thereof, it is pointed out that the RSM score of the writ petitioner in the instant case was 42-47. He then places reliance on an order dated May 12, 2022 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in FMA 314 of 2022 (Smt. Chandana Laru versus Union of India and others) wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench had an occasion to deal with a more or less similar matter where the RSM score of the loan applicant was less than 50. In the said case, the Hon’ble Division Bench observed that the Model Educational Loan Scheme for pursuing higher education in India and abroad issued by the Indian Bank Association clearly stated that the objective of the scheme was outlined to provide financial support from the banking system to meritorious students for pursuing higher education in India and abroad. The order further noted that the eligibility condition mentioned in the scheme was required to be read in consonance with the object of the scheme and that even otherwise the note therein clearly mentioned that it would be for the bank to consider if a meritorious student who qualified for a seat under merit quota was eligible for loan under the scheme even if the student chose to pursue a course under the Management Quota. The Division Bench further observed that in that case the appellant had secured only 49% marks in the qualifying examination and, therefore, the loan application had been returned by rejecting the case by communication dated 7^th November, 2020 which clearly recorded the reasons for rejection. It was also noted by the Hon’ble Division Bench that the applicant’s RSM score achieved in LOS was less than 50.

In the instant case too the RSM score achieved by the writ petitioner is found to be less than 50.

In reply the learned advocate representing the petitioner has submitted that the facts of the present case are different from that of the case before the Hon’ble Division Bench. It is submitted that in the case before the Hon’ble Division Bench the concerned student had obtained only 49% marks in the qualifying examination and it was one of the reasons that weighed with the Hon’ble Court. It is submitted that in the instant case the Bank has not cited any such reason. It is further submitted that the Bank has been taking different stand in different cases of similar nature and that even after the said order being passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench, the Bank has sanctioned Loan to students having low RSM score. For such purpose he seeks leave of this Court to file a supplementary affidavit to bring on record the facts of another matter being the case of Anjana Pandey versus Union of Ind