JUDGMENT

Dated this the 9th day of March 2021 S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.

Instant writ appeal is filed challenging the judgment of the writ court in W.P.(C)No.27421 of 2020 dated 29.1.2021 by which, a learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition setting aside Exhibit P4 and directed the appellants/respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for educational loan in tune with the true spirit and intent behind Exhibit P8 scheme and to pass appropriate orders within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal are as hereunder:

Writ petition was filed by the respondent herein, an applicant for Education Loan, seeking for a writ of mandamus or such other writ of appropriate nature ordering the respondents/appellants to recall Exhibit P4 loan rejection letter and to consider the loan application in terms of Exhibit P8 loan scheme and grant educational loan to the petitioner for her B.Sc.

Nursing course.

3. The second appellant has filed a counter affidavit mainly contending that the reason for rejecting the application was that the petitioner has not secured the minimum of 80 % marks in the individual qualifying subjects in her plus two exams as stipulated by the bank's norms on eligibility for educational loan.

4. It was contended that Exhibit P8 is the original scheme which was proposed in the year 2001 and in the course of time several changes have been made in the scheme. The Banks are free to adopt their own standards for the eligibility criteria in respect of students who have not secured admission through the process of Common Entrance Examination. As per Exhibit R 2 (a) amended scheme, 'a minimum cut off mark of 80 % in those subjects which are considered as qualifying subjects and 75% in aggregate in HSC (10 plus 2 or equivalent) for such higher education is prescribed for sanctioning educational loan, when the student is securing admission not through a Common Entrance Examination process. The Applicant/writ petitioner had secured admission not on the basis of a Common Entrance Test in the State. It is in view of the changed policy, the application of the petitioner was rejected more than one year ago.

5. The learned Single Judge by judgment in W.P.(C)No.27421 of 2020 dated 29.1.2021 allowed the writ petition setting aside Exhibit P4. Relevant portion of the impugned judgment reads as under:

“6. Going by Ext.P8 Scheme, petitioner cannot be said to be ineligible for Educational Loan. It is also a matter to be considered by the Bank that she is undergoing Nursing Course, which is a professional undergraduate course and the Bank has to look into the prospects of the said course, while considering her application. The financial position of the mother of petitioner cannot have any effect on determining the eligibility of the petitioner for Educational Loan. The Bank is not expected to deny the opportunity to pursue her opportunity on the ground that her mother/ parents are defaulters in repayment of housing loan.

7. It is also relevant to note that this Court had in Exts.P9 and P10 judgments in W.P. (C) Nos.19248/2019 and 10968/2020 had directed the respective Banks to grant the benefits covered by the Model Educational loan Scheme to the petitioners therein.

8. Though the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in those cases, the rejection was on the ground of CIBIL score of the parents of the petitioners, in the present case, the case of the petitioner is not seen considered in tune with the provisions contained in Ext.P8 Scheme. The stringent provisions in Ext.R2(a) Scheme framed by the respondent Bank cannot supersede the provisions in Ext.P8 Scheme.

Therefore Ext.P4 shall stand set aside. There shall be a direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for educational loan in tune with the true spirit and intent behind Ext.P8 Scheme and to pass appropriate orders on it. Appropriate action shall be taken within a period of thr