Dismissed

Sakkarias, v. the Chief Manager

Madras HC12 Jun 2023WP(MD)/21227/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging the rejection of an educational loan application for his son due to insufficient marks, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the petition. The court had previously asked for bank norms, which were produced showing the minimum cut-off marks were 60% for general category students, thus validating the rejection.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no order as to costs.

Sakkarias, Vs the Chief Manager — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP(MD)No.21227 of 2014

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated: 12.06.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)No.21227 of 2014 and

¶7

MP(MD)No.1 of 2014

Sakkarias

... Petitioner

1.The Chief Manager,

¶12

Indian Overseas Bank, Priority Credit Department,

¶13

Regional Office,

¶14

Nageroil, Kanyakumari District.

¶15

2.The Manager,

¶16

Indian Overseas Bank, Kanyakumari Branch, Kanyakumari.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order of the 1^st vide letter RO/PCD/03/2013-2014 dated 29.08.2013 issued by

¶19

the respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to sanction educational loan to petitioner's son for pursuing his B.E.,Mechanical Engineering Course.

¶20

For Petitioner : No representation

¶21

For Respondent : Mr.M.Senthil Kumar Nos.1 and 2

¶22

1/5

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

WP(MD)No.21227 of 2014

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has approached the respondent Bank for an education loan for his son, who got an opportunity to pursue B.E.,(Mechanical Engineering) in an Engineering College at Tirunelveli. The Second respondent by the order impugned in this writ petition has rejected the loan application of the petitioner on 29.08.2013 stating that the petitioner's son has not secured sufficient marks as per their norm. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶27

2.When the writ petition was taken up for hearing on 02.06.2023 there was no representation for the petitioner. Therefore, the case was directed to be listed under the caption for dismissal. Accordingly this writ petition is listed under the caption 'for dismissal' today. When the case is taken up for hearing there is no representation for the petitioner, despite the case is listed under the caption for dismissal.

¶28

2/5

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

WP(MD)No.21227 of 2014

¶31

3.This Court on the earlier occasion directed the respondent Bank to file a report regarding the norms which has been prescribed for grant of educational loan.

¶32

4.The learned Counsel for respondents has produced the

¶33

circular issued by the General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, Chennai and the relevant portion reads as follows:

¶34

“We invite reference to our earlier circulars No.ADV/105/2011-2012 dated 12.12.2011 and ADV/250/2012-2013, dated 09.10.2012 advising the details of the Vidya Jyothi Educational Loan

¶35

Scheme and the subsequent amendments covering admissions under Management quota also under both VJEL scheme and IOB Scholar scheme, the minimum cut-off marks have been reduced from the present level of 65% to 60% for students under general category and 55% for students belonging to SC/ST categories.”

¶36

5.In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous is also dismissed.

¶37

dsk

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

WP(MD)No.21227 of 2014

¶40

¶41

1.The Chief Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Priority Credit Department, Regional Office, Nageroil, Kanyakumari District.

¶42

2.The Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Kanyakumari Branch, Kanyakumari.

¶43

4/5

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

WP(MD)No.21227 of 2014

¶46

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶47

dsk

¶48

WP(MD)No.21227 of 2014

¶49

12.06.2023

¶50

5/5

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Sakkarias, v. the Chief Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sakkarias, v. the Chief Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Thangapandiyan, Vs the District Revenue Officer

Dr.P.Varathapandian, Vs the District Collector

Minor B.Vanishree, Vs the Chairman

Anbazhagan.R Vs R.Shanthi Malar

A. Seeni @ Seenivasan Vs the Chairperson

T.Vinay Veera Arasu Vs the District Collector