Dismissed

Joel S.Joy v. Bank of Baroda

Kerala HC15 Feb 2018WA/295/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ appeal against a bank's refusal to grant an education loan. The court held the rejection was legal as the appellant secured admission via management quota without meeting the required merit-based selection criteria outlined in the bank's guidelines.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed, upholding the bank's decision to reject the education loan application.

Joel S.Joy Vs Bank of Baroda — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 26TH MAGHA, 1939

¶6

WA.No.295 of 2018 IN WPC. 26732/2017 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 26732/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 21-11-2017

¶7

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶8

1 JOEL S.JOY, AGED 18, S/O. JOY JOSEPH, THULUSSERIL HOUSE, MUTTUCHIRA PO., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 613, (APPLICANT), II SEMESTER B.TECH, (COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING) STUDENT, MANGALAM COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MANGALAM HILLS P O, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 631 2 JOY JOSEPH, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH, THULUSSERIL HOUSE, MUTTUCHIRA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 613, (CO-APPLICANT)

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS AND ADDITIONAL 5TH RESPONDENT:

¶11

1. BANK OF BARODA, KURUPPUNTHARA BRANCH, MANJOOR P.O., KURUPPUNTHARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 603, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, BANK OF BARODA, VASUDEV BUILDING, T.D.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 011.
3. MANAGING DIRECTOR & C. E. O., BANK OF BARODA, C-26, G-BLOCK, BANDRA, KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST), EAST, MUMBAI, PIN-400 051.
4. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (CHNZ), BANK OF BARODA, CHENNAI ZONAL OFFICE, BARODA PRIDE, NO.41, IIND FLOOR, LUZ CHURCH ROAD, MYLAPOORE, CHENNAI-600 004.
5. MANGALAM COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MANGALAM CAMPUS, VETTIMUKAL P.O., ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 631.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.ANEESH R1 BY ADV. SRI.ADARSH KUMAR R1 BY ADV. SRI.BIJU VARGHESE ABRAHAM
R BY SMT.R.REMA, SC, BANK OF BARODA

¶12

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

ANTONY DOMINIC, C.J. & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶14

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶15

Writ Appeal No.295 of 2018

¶16

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2018

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Antony Dominic, C.J.

¶19

The appeal arises from the judgment in W.P. (C)No.26732/17. The appellants filed the writ petition aggrieved by the refusal of the first respondent bank to grant the first appellant educational loan to pursue his studies under the additional 5^th respondent Engineering College. By the judgment under appeal, accepting the case of the bank that the first appellant could not qualify for the education loan, the writ petition was dismissed. It is this judgment, which is impugned before us.

¶20

We heard the counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank.

¶21

The short question that is required to be considered is

¶22

whether the decision of the bank to reject the education loan

¶23

Writ Appeal No.295 of 2018

¶24

: 2 :

¶25

suffers from any illegality to be interfered with. This question can be answered with reference to the guidelines that are framed by the Bank regulating the consideration of application for education loan. These guidelines are contained in Ext.R1(a) produced by the Bank along with its affidavit. A reading of this document would clearly show that the student should have secured admission in recognised institution for approved courses by UGC/Government/AICTE through Entrance Test/Merit Based selection process after completion of HSC (10 plus 2 or equivalent). In other words, this would put beyond any doubt that in order to be eligible to avail the education loan, the student must have secured admission in a recognised institution through a merit based selection process. Ext.P2, certificate produced by the student itself shows that for Mathematics, he has secured only 42 marks. Ext.P4, the prospectus issued by the 5^th respondent college, would further

¶26

Writ Appeal No.295 of 2018

¶27

: 3 :

¶28

show that for merit based studies 50% marks separately for Mathematics and aggregate 60% in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics is required. Obviously, the student did not satisfy

¶29

this requirement and has secured admission in the management quota seat, he having only secured 45% marks.

¶30

If that be so, the assessment of the bank that the first appellant did not qualify for the loan in question cannot be said to be illegal. Consequently, the judgment of the learned Single

¶31

Judge cannot be impugned on any sustainable terms.

¶32

Writ appeal fails and it is dismissed.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

ANTONY DOMINIC, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶35

Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE

¶36

jes

Joel S.Joy v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joel S.Joy v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Manager, Ksm Vhss Vs Sheela T.

G.Balakrishnan Nair Vs v.J.Kurian

Vincent K. Jacob Vs K.T. Jacob

Sibichan Thomas Vs Dr. K.Ellangovan

K.K.Aliyas Vs Authorised Officer, Repco Home Finance Ltd.

K.Kuttan Nair Vs the State of Kerala