B.R. Harish Babu vs The Union of India (UOI), Reserve Bank of India, Rural Planning and Credit Department, Indian Bank and The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Aruppukkottai Branch

S. Manikumar, J.—On 14.03.2009, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Today also there is no representation. The

petitioner''s father, a practicing advocate attempted to place the facts. As the petitioner is a major, he has been politely informed that he cannot be

permitted to do so, and considering the petitioner''s need for educational loan to pursue his course, the matter has been taken up and disposed of

on merits.

The petitioner, student of Aircraft Maintenance Engineering Course in Park School of Aeronautical Sciences, Coimbatore, has sought for a

Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Aruppukkottai Branch, Virudhunagar District dated

19.02.2009, rejecting his request for educational loan and consequently, prayed for a direction to the fourth respondent to sanction the same.

Perusal of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition shows that on 19.08.2008, he had applied to the fourth

respondent for the educational term loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- under the Bank''s Scheme for continuing his higher education. According to him, his

father Mr. B. Ramana is an Advocate earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. His mother Tmt. R. Rajeswari working as Music Teacher in a Government

aided School at Arupukkottai is earning a gross salary of Rs. 17,889/- per month. Though the petitioner''s parents were willing to offer sufficient

guarantee for repayment of loan, the fourth respondent without considering the loan application, in proper perspective, has sent a letter dated

19.02.2009, returning the application by stating that the petitioner is not eligible for sanction of loan. The said rejection of the application for grant

of educational loan, is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the fourth respondent has failed to see that some of the poor students viz.,

Thiru M. Muzeef Rahman, Ms. S. Divya Deepika Bai and Thiru B. Vinayak, have been granted financial assistance, under the educational term

loan scheme formulated by the Government and thus there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of Indian.

The Reserve Bank of India, in its letter dated 28.04.2001 has communicated to the Chairman/Managing Director of All Scheduled Commercial

Banks, the decision of Finance Ministry to grant educational loan for poor and meritorious students. The Scheme, evolved and communicated to

the Chairman/Managing Director of All Scheduled Commercial Banks reads as follows:

The Finance Minister in a meeting with the Chief Executives of the public sector banks on 13 June, 2000 had highlighted the role of commercial

banks in facilitating pursuit of higher education by poor, but meritorious students. In pursuance thereof the Indian Banks'' Association constituted a

Study Group under the chairmanship of Shri R.J. Kamath, Chairman and Managing Director of Central Bank to examine the issue in detail. Based

on the recommendations of the Study Group, a comprehensive model educational loan scheme was prepared by the Indian Banks'' Association for

adoption by all banks. The Scheme aims at providing financial support from the banking system to deserving/meritorious students for pursuing

higher education in Indian and abroad. The scheme was announced in the Union Budget for 2001-2002 and discussed in the meeting the Finance

Minister had with the Chief Executives of banks on 7th April 2001.

The laudable object set out in the educational loan scheme is for the development of human capital, and it should be the endeavour of all, that no

deserving student is denied of an opportunity to pursue higher education for want of financial support. The educational loan scheme, is aimed at

providing financial support from the banking system to deserving/meritorious students for pursuing higher education in India and abroad. The main

emphasis is that every meritorious student though poor is provided with an opportunity to pursue his education with the financial support from the

banking system with affordable terms and conditions. No deserving student is denied of an opportunity to pursue for want of financial support in

short, the scheme aims at providing financial assistance on reasonable terms,

(i) to the poor and needy to undertake basic education.

(ii) to the meritorious students to pursue higher/professions/technical education.

When the object of the educational loan scheme is to provide financial assistance to highly meritorious/deserving students, the petitioner who has

secured only 70% marks in the subjects, cannot compel the financial institution to render assistance, dehors the object behind the scheme. The

beneficial scheme should reach the poor and meritorious students, and it cannot be expected to be availed by people who can afford to pay fees. If

that is permitted than the whole object of the scheme will be defeated, in which event, the poor and meritorious students would be denied of their

chances of getting financial assistance for pursuing their course. A perusal of the impugned letter, dated 19.02.2009 of the Manager shows that the

application of the petitioner for financial assistance under educational loan scheme has been considered on merits and found not eligible.

In these circumstances, having regard to the objective, when the fourth respondent has exercised his discretion with reference to the eligibility

prescribed under the scheme, this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot substitute the views of the fourth respondent

and sit in over his discretion. As long as the discretion is exercised in a fair and reasoned manner, no interference is called for, under judicial

review. The loan, which has been granted to other individuals, stated in the affidavit probably would have been granted on satisfying the criteria

prescribed under the scheme. Besides, no details have been given as to the marks secured by those candidates. Therefore, that cannot be taken as

a precedent warranting any direction from this Court.

In these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned letter of the fourth respondent dated 19.02.2009. Hence, this writ

petition is dismissed. No costs.