Dismissed

The Branch Manager v. Amriya Saju

Kerala HC6 Dec 2022WA/955/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged the High Court's order dismissing a petition against bank loan rejection. The appellants argued admission criteria mattered, but the court held that since previous precedent deemed the students eligible, and they had completed their courses, no adjudication was needed. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the writ appeal; no specific relief granted as the loan issue was deemed settled by prior judgments.

The Branch Manager Vs Amriya Saju — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

W. A. No. 955 of 2015

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶6

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶8

¶9

WA NO. 955 OF 2015

¶10

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT WPC 33597/2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶11

APPELLANT/S:

¶12

1 THE BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ARUMANOOR BRANCH, KOTTAYAM-686564

¶13

2 THE BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,RAMANKARY BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA-689595

¶14

3 STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE(SBT) POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695012,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶15

BY ADV SRI.R.S.KALKURA

¶16

RESPONDENT/S:

¶17

1 MARIYA SAJU

¶18

D/O.SAJU JACOB, PUNNODATHU HOUSE, PUNNATHURA EAST P O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶19

2 ALPHONSA JOSEPH

¶20

D/O.OUSEPH VARGHESE,PALLICHIRA HOUSE, VEZHAPARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶21

3 RESERVICE BANK OF INDIA(RBI) CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, 400001,REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR

¶22

4 INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION(IBA) WORLD TRADE CENTRE, 6TH FLOOR, CENTRE-1, BUILDING WORLD TRADE CENTRE COMPLEX, CUFF PARADE, MUMBAI400005,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶23

BY ADVS.

¶24

SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)

¶25

W. A. No. 955 of 2015

¶26

-2-

¶27

BRIJESH MOHAN
SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH
SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI

¶28

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶29

W. A. No. 955 of 2015

-3-

J U D G M E N T

S. Manikumar, C. J.

Before the writ court, in W. P. (C) No. 33597 of 2014, petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:-

¶34

“i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to Ext.P6 & P7 and quash the same;

¶35

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to sanction and disburse the educational loan applied for by the petitioners forthwith;

¶36

iii) Declare that the stipulation to obtain 60% aggregate subject-wise in the qualifying examination in the case of petitioners who secured admission through merit quota is absolutely illegal and transgression over the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under the Constitution of India.”

¶37

Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as

¶38

under:-

¶39

a) Petitioners, who got admission for B.Sc Nursing Degree Programme under the merit quota at Quality Health Care College of

¶40

W. A. No. 955 of 2015

¶41

-4-

¶42

Nursing in Karnataka, is aggrieved by the rejection of their applications for educational loan by respondents 1 and 2, without any valid or sustainable reason. The loan applications have been rejected stating that the petitioners did not secure 60% marks individually in the qualifying examination.

¶43

b) Petitioners have submitted that the stand taken by respondents 1 and 2 cannot be sustained in view of the decisions of this Court in Runa Varghese v. Federal Bank and Others [2014 (2) KLT 764] and Manager, Andhra Bank, Tvm. v. Reshma Syam S. [2014 (4) KHC 704] .

¶44

Adverting to the rival submissions and following the decision of a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Manager, Andhra Bank, Tvm. v. Reshma Syam S. [2014 (4) KHC 704] and the judgment in State Bank of Travancore and Another v. Chinchumol M. S. in W. A. No. 1147 of 2014, writ court, by judgment dated 06.04.2015, quashed the orders impugned, and directed the authorized officer of the appellant Bank, to reconsider the applications preferred by the writ petitioners, for grant of educational loan, in terms of the decision in Manager, Andhra Bank, Tvm. v. Reshma Syam S. [2014 (4) KHC

¶45

W. A. No. 955 of 2015

¶46

-5-

¶47

704] .

¶48

Writ court further directed that the said proceedings shall be finalized, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment in the writ petition.

¶49

Being aggrieved, instant writ appeal is filed on the grounds inter alia that the writ court ought to have held that admission secured in private professional colleges by their own mode of selection can never be considered as meritorious selection. Such admission can only be described as management quota seats since the mode of selection adopted by management of each individual college depends upon their whims and fancies. The seats to which private management educational institutions have discretion to give admission may be based on factors other than merit.

¶50

Appellants have further contended that the writ court failed to appreciate the fact that the term meritorious, management quota etc. are well defined by the Indian Banks Association vide circular dated 30.08.2011 and that the above circular gives ample power to the member Banks to fix cut off marks percentage for loan eligibility

¶51

W. A. No. 955 of 2015

¶52

-6-

¶53

where admission is purely based on the marks of qualifying examination and the Bank can fix appropriate terms and conditions for loans under management quota.

¶54

It is further contended that the writ court ought to have held

¶55

that the Reserve Bank of India nor the Indian Banks Association have not prescribed any guidelines for grant of loan to students admitted under the management quota. Apart from the same, clause 3 of the circular, as stated above, empowers the member Banks to have its own criteria to fix conditions for grant of such loans.

¶56

That apart, it is contended that the reliance placed by the writ court on the decision reported in Runa Varghese v. Federal Bank

¶57

[2014 (2) KLT 764] and Manager, Andhra Bank v. Reshma Shyam [2014 (4) KHC 704] is wrong and unsustainable. The decision was rendered on account of the fact that the contesting Bank had not brought the distinction between merit quota and management quota as envisaged by the Indian Banks Association Education scheme.

¶58

Though Mr. R. S. Kalkura, learned counsel for the appellants, made submissions on the abovesaid grounds, and further contended

¶59

W. A. No. 955 of 2015

¶60

-7-

¶61

that the issue of granting educational loan to those students admitted in management quota, was left open in W. A. No. 1147 of 2014, by inviting the attention of this Court to the decision of a Hon’ble Division Bench judgment of this Court in Manager, Andhra Bank v. Reshma Shyam [2014 (4) KHC 704] , Mr. Brijesh Mohan, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, contended that the very same issue has been extensively dealt with, and thus, the Hon’ble Division Bench held against the Bank.

¶62

He further submitted that the writ petitioners were admitted in 4 year B.Sc. Nursing course for the academic year 2014-2015. They have completed the course and certificates have been issued by the University.

¶63

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and material available on record.

¶64

Though Mr. R. S. Kalkura, learned counsel for the appellants, strenuously submitted that in the judgment in State Bank of Travancore and Another v. Chinchumol M. S . in W. A. No. 1147 of 2014 dated 02.02.2015, a Hon’ble Division Bench observed that the

¶65

W. A. No. 955 of 2015

¶66

-8-

¶67

issue involved in the abovesaid case was left open to be considered, while going through the judgment reported in Manager, Andhra Bank v. Reshma Shyam [2014 (4) KHC 704] , and in particular, paragraphs 5 to 8, it is clear that the Hon’ble Division Bench has answered the issue as against the Bank, and in such circumstances, it is not open to the appellants to contend that the issue is still alive.

¶68

For brevity, paragraph Nos. 5 to 8 of the decision in Manager, Andhra Bank v. Reshma Shyam [2014 (4) KHC 704] , are reproduced:-

¶69

“5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ petitioner was not admitted through any Entrance Test nor has secured 65% marks in the qualifying academic year examination, hence she was not eligible for loan. He further submits that the Bank has already communicated the petitioner by letter dated 20.03.2013 that she has not fulfilled the criteria and her case cannot be considered on merit. The Bank further stated that if the applicant provides suitable collateral security of not less than 150%, the bank may consider her case.

¶70

We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records. It is useful to quote the revised model scheme on educational loans which has been issued by the Bank on 28.05.2012. The learned counsel has

¶71

W. A. No. 955 of 2015

¶72

-9-

¶73

referred to Clause I(d) and I(e) of the Scheme, which read as under:

¶74

“ I) Revised Model Scheme on Educational Loans for Higher Studies in India and Abroad (2011).

¶75

(d) Should have secured admission to a higher education course in recognized institutions in India or Abroad through Entrance Test/Merit Based Selection process after completion of HSC (10 plus 2 or equivalent).

¶76

(e) In case where admission is not through common entrance test and the marks secured in the qualifying examination is the only criteria adopted, the minimum cut off marks should be 65% in aggregate in the qualifying academic examination.”

¶77

Clause I(f) is also relevant which is extracted below:

¶78

“(f) The cut-ff 65% marks in aggregate in the qualifying academic examination is also applicable to all courses offered by deemed universities and also to non-professional and nontechnical courses, irrespective of the common entrance test.”

¶79

The communication which has been issued by the Bank to the petitioner dated 20.03.2013 also referred to the guidelines dated 28.05.2012 and stated that since the petitioner's admission was not by common entrance test and she has not secured 65% in aggregate in the qualifying examination, she is not eligible for the loan. For deciding the issue, we have to interpret Clause I(d) and (e) of the Scheme. Clause I(d) is the general condition regarding student's eligibility for loan which

¶80

W. A. No. 955 of 2015

¶81

-10-

¶82

provides “Should have secured admission to a higher education course in recognized institutions in India or Abroad through Entrance Test/Merit Based Selection process after completion of HSC (10 plus 2 or equivalent)”. The insistence of the Bank is that the students will be given the benefit of loan only when they have secured admission to higher education course in a recognised institution in India through Entrance Test/merit test selection. In this case the petitioner had been admitted in the institution which is recognised by Indian Nursing Council and from Ext.P3 it is clear that 60 seats have been allocated to the National College of Nursing, Bangalore, where the petitioner has sought admission. Thus, the institution where the petitioner has sought admission is a recognised institution. The petitioner was not admitted through the common entrance test, which is also clear from the records.

¶83

The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that since in the qualifying examination i.e., 10 + 2 she has not secured 65% aggregate, she cannot be treated as a merit candidate for loan. We have perused Clause (e) which has been relied on by learned counsel for the appellant. Clause (d) and (e) have to be read together. Clause (d) is explanatory as to process of admission, which is either through any entrance test or on the marks secured in the qualifying examination. Clause (e) indicates that if there is no common entrance test and the marks in the qualifying examination is the only criteria, then the minimum 65% cut off marks in aggregate is required. In the present case the merit of the candidate in the qualifying examination (10+ 2) is not the only criteria for admission. But the admission had been

¶84

W. A. No. 955 of 2015

¶85

-11-

¶86

conducted on the basis of a test conducted by the institution itself. The admission of the petitioner when based on a test conducted by a recognised college, the criteria i.e. 65% in the qualifying examination, is not applicable. The procedure under which the petitioner was admitted is thus clearly an admission secured on the merit based selection process as indicated in Clause I(d). Institutions which are recognised by the Indian Nursing Council are recognised institutions and any criteria for such admission cannot be said to be not a merit based criteria. The reason which have been thus indicated to the petitioner for not sanctioning the loan cannot be accepted. The Bank was relying on a misconception that since the petitioner has not secured 65% marks in the qualifying examination, her application cannot be considered for sanction of loan. Collateral security of not less than 150% of the limit have been demanded which is applicable with regard to management quota students as per Clause (f) quoted above.

¶87

We thus are of the clear opinion that the petitioner was fully eligible for the loan and the Bank has erroneously rejected her application. We uphold the decision of the learned Single Judge for the reasons stated above. The Writ Appeal is dismissed. The learned Single Judge has already directed to disburse the loan amount within four weeks. We confirm the said direction and the Bank shall disburse the loan amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”

¶88

W. A. No. 955 of 2015

¶89

-12-

¶90

In the light of the above discussion and taking note of the fact

¶91

that the students have already completed the course, and certificates

¶92

issued, nothing survives in this writ petition for further adjudication.

¶93

Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.

¶94

Sd/S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

¶95

Sd/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶96

¶97

///TRUE COPY/// P. A. TO JUDGE

The Branch Manager v. Amriya Saju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager v. Amriya Saju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saneesh a.S., Vs the Secretary

Speaks Properties Limited Vs State of Kerala

C.R.Neelakandan Vs State of Kerala

Sasindra Raj K., Vs State of Kerala

The Medical Council of India Vs Dr. Binu T.G

The Medical Council of India Vs Dr.Vijo George