J. Ponnuthai vs The Senior Branch Manager

R.S. Ramanathan, J.—Heard both sides. The Petitioner has approached the Respondent-Bank for the purpose of availing educational loan for her two daughters, viz. Indumathi and Janani. The elder daughter of the Petitioner, Indumathi was selected under the Government Quota in the Counselling and she joined DIET, Kumulur, Tiruchi District and the college prescribed fees for a sum of Rs. 29,810/- for two years course. The younger daughter of the Petitioner, Janani, did not get a seat through Counselling and hence, she applied through management quota and got a seat in the Maharishi Vidya Mandir Teacher Training Institute, Madurai and joined in that institute. The said institute prescribed fee for a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- for two years and for that purpose, the Petitioner has approached the Respondent-Bank for educational loan. The Respondent-Bank, by its letter dated 7.11.2008, expressed their inability to consider the application for education loan on the ground that the Maharish Vidya Mandir Teacher Training Institute, Madurai, is not in the list of Teachers Training Institutes approved by the DTERT, Chennai and that order is challenged in the Writ Petition.

The case of the Petitioner is that the Institute Maharishi Vidya Mandir Teacher Training Institute, Madurai, is include as Item No. 218 in the list of Institutes recognised by DTERT, Chennai and therefore, the rejection on that ground is not proper. It is seen from the typed set of papers filed by the Petitioner that in the information brochure, the name of Maharishi Vidya Mandir Teacher Training Institute, Madurai, is mentioned as S. No. 218 in the list of institutions in Madurai District.

The Respondent filed the Counter Affidavit, wherein it is also admitted that the said Institute has been included in the revised list and therefore, they have no objection for providing loan to the Petitioner.

Therefore, in a normal circumstance, the statement made in the Counter Affidavit can be recorded and the Writ Petition would have been closed. But in this case, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent raised his objection to the grant of loan in respect of the younger daughter, Janani on ground that as per G.O.Ms. No. 107 dated 17.7.2002, the total fee, which is eligible for educational loan, is Rs. 5,000/- and in addition to that, the candidate is entitled to food and hostel expenses and as per then Application of the younger daughter of the Petitioner, Janani, the tuition fee is prescribed as Rs. 30,000/-, which is higher than the fee prescribed by the Government and therefore, they can sanction the loan only to an extent of Rs. 5,000/- towards tuition fee and beyond that the Bank cannot grant loan so far as the tuition fee is concerned.

As the Respondent-Bank has raised their object in the Counter Affidavit itself and also reiterated in the argument, it is necessary to give a direction to the Respondent in the matter of granting of educational loan, as it would put to an end to the litigation, otherwise if the Writ Petition is disposed of, by recording the statement made in the Counter Affidavit that the Maharishi Vidya Mandir Teacher Training Institute, Madurai, is one of the approved Institutes and the impugned order is set aside, the Bank would refuse to grant the educational loan on the basis of the stand taken by them in the Counter Affidavit and there would be another ground of litigation to the Petitioner.

The stand of the Respondent is that they are prepared to abide by the G.O.Ms. No. 107, School Educational Department, dated 17.7.2002 and auction the loan for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- which was prescribed by the Government and further submitted that the Institute cannot charge more than the prescribed fee fixed by the Government.

The Respondent also filed the typed set of papers, wherein the Circular issued by the Respondent-Bank in respect of Star Educational loan Scheme on 13.9.2007 and IBA general guidelines for B.Ed., Educational Loan Scheme and IBA Educational Loan guide-lines. On the basis of the above guide-lines, Mr. R. Rangasamy, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent contended that the Respondent is bound by those guidelines and as the Maharishi Vidya Mandir Teacher Training Institute, Madurai, demanded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards tuition fees for every year, which is higher that the tuition fee prescribed by the Government, they cannot grant that amount. He also submitted that in so far as the hotel and other expenses are concerned, the Bank will consider the same and their only objection was in respect of the tuition fee.

I have gone through the circular and guidelines, issued by the Respondent-Bank and IBA. In the circular issued by the Respondent-Bank dated 13.9.2007, it is stated in para 4 under the heading "Expenses considered for loan/," fee payable to college/School/hotel and under the same heading it is further stated, fee payable to the College/Institute shall be as per the brochure/demand letter from the institutions.

It is nowhere stated in the said Circular that the fee payable must be strictly in accordance with the fee prescribed by the Government.

In the Circular dated 27.9.2008, issued by the I.B.A., it is stated as follows:

Teacher Training Coursers/Nursing Course/B.Ed, will be eligible for education loan provided the training institutions are approved either by the Central Government or by the State Government and such courses should lead to Degree or Diploma Course and not to Certification Course. The fee to be considered for the purpose should be the fee structure as stipulated in Central/State Government College.

Thus, it is seen from the above circular the fee to be considered for that purpose should be the fee prescribed as stipulated in Central and State Government Colleges.

The Bank Association has come out on with a Revised model educational loan, by its Circular dated 19.11.2008, wherein the objects of the scheme is stated in para 2, which is as follows:

The Educational Loan Scheme outlined below aims 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 education with the financial support from the Banking system with affordable terms and conditions. No deserving student is denied an opportunity to pursue higher education for want of financial support.

and under the caption eligibility criteria in para 4, it is stated that the student who secured admission to technical courses through entrance Test/Merit Basis Selection process are eligible.

Further under the same caption, in para 4.3 uber sub-heading expenses considered for loan, it is stated [that] fee payable to college/school/hostel. In the revised Circular dated 19.11.2008, it has not been restricted the above fee prescribed by the Government. Therefore, having regard to the object of the scheme as stated in the revised guidelines for Model Educational Loan Scheme, the main emphasis is that every meritorious student should be provided with an opportunity to pursue education with the financial support from the Banking system with affordable terms and conditions and hence, no deserving student should be denied an opportunity to pursue higher education for want of financial support.

Hence, the stand of the Respondent that they would have considered the Loan Application only if the fee structure is similar to the fee structure as prescribed by the State Government, cannot be accepted. As stated supra, except the Circular dated 27.9.2008, nowhere in the guidelines dated 13.9.2007 and 19.11.2008, it is stated that the tuition fee will be confined only to the fee prescribed by the State Government and that amount will be granted as a loan.

Therefore, the Respondent-Bank cannot be heard to say that the Petitioner''s young daughter Janani is not eligible to avail the educational loan in respect of tuition fee in excess of Rs. 5,000/- as prescribed by the Government.

The stand of the Respondent-Bank is also liable to be rejected for the following reasons:

The Bank relied upon the G.O.Ms. No. 107 dated 17.7.2008, but the Bank has not come forward with any proof in respect of the fee prescribed by the State Government Institute or Private Management Institute so as to restrict themselves to the grant of educational loan as per the fee structure fixed by the Government.

Admittedly, the younger daughter, Janani, has been selected under the Management quota and hence, the institutes are permitted to charge higher tuition fee for students selected under Management quota and it is not the case of the Respondent that the tuition fee of Rs. 30,000/- per year is not the tuition fee prescribed by the Government. The only restriction is [that] they should not demand capitation fee and the management may fix reasonable fee having regard to the facilities provided.

Further even assuming that the tuition fee prescribed by the institute for students selected under the Management quota is higher than the fee prescribed by the State Government, the Bank can very well bring the same to the notice of the authorities about the same. As a matter of fact, the Bank had filed a news item published in the on-line edition of ''THE HINDU dated 9.10.2007, wherein the Collector of Erode District, directed the people to instruct the management of the school to follow the Government rules and directed the officials to instruct the Teacher Training Institutes not to charge more than the prescribed fee. Therefore, in my opinion, the Respondent-Bank should consider the Educational Loan Application of the Petitioner on the revised guide-lines prescribed by the I.B.A., which does not restrict the fee structure as that of the Government Institute and sanction the loan if the Petitioner is otherwise eligible for the same.

In this case, it is seen from the Affidavit of the Petitioner that she comes from a poor background, her husband is running a tea stall and earning meager sum, which is sufficient only to meet their day to-day life and the Petitioner wanted to give good education to her daughters, who have secured 77.50% and 77.33%. When the Government is coming out with various schemes for the emancipation of women and for providing higher education to the weaker sections, especially to the women, the Respondent should not consider the Education Loan Application with a narrow mind and if they are satisfied that the loan is sought for by the Petitioner for genuine propose, they must be liberal in sanctioning the loan, when the parties are otherwise eligible for the loan, without themselves being chained by those procedures.

I am sure the Respondent-Bank instead of considering the Loan Application in a pedantic manner, would consider the same in the light of the observations made by me in this order and would provide sufficient loan amount to the Petitioner for the education of her daughters. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is allowed, and the impugned order of the Respondent dated 7.11.2008 is set aside. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.