Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Chandana Laru vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 May, 2022
12
jks/
saswata 12.05.2022
FMA 314 of 2022
With
CAN 1 of 2021
Smt. Chandana Laru
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Achyut Basu
Ms. Sonam Basu
Ms. Punam Basu
Mr. Srikumar Chakraborty
... ... for the appellant
Ms. Mary Datta
... ... for the Union of India
Mr. Debashis Saha
Ms. Dipika Banu
... ... for the respondent nos. 5 to 8
By this appeal writ petitioner has challenged the
order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.09.2021
whereby WPA 13052 of 2021 has been dismissed.
The appellant had filed writ petition questioning
the communication dated 07.11.2020 whereby the
educational loan application of the appellant was
rejected.
The appellant's plea before the learned Single
Judge was that after passing the requisite qualifying
examination she had taken admission in East West
School of Nursing, Bengaluru and is pursuing studies
therein. She had approached the respondent/ bank for
grant of financial assistance/ loan for a sum of
`3,50,500/- but the application was wrongly rejected.
Learned Single Judge has considered the
educational loan Scheme of the bank and has noted that
the financial support is provided to the meritorious
students for pursuing higher studies in India or abroad
and has also taken note of the fact that the appellant had
secured only 49 per cent marks i.e. below 50 per cent
marks. Therefore, she was not found eligible for the loan.
Hence, the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere
in the order of rejection and has dismissed the writ
petition.
Leaned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that the appellant is entitled to the loan and the
application cannot be rejected only on the ground that
she had obtained 49 per cent instead of 50 per cent and
in support of his submission he has placed reliance upon
the learned Single Bench judgment of the Kerela High
Court dated 9th July, 2021 in WP(C) 6593 of 2021 in the
matter of Devika Soniraj versus the Zonal Manager, Bank
of India and another.
Learned counsel for the respondent / bank has
opposed the writ petition and has submitted that as per
the Scheme, the financial assistance is to be extended to
the meritorious students and that in order to have a
uniform policy the bank has devised a software i.e. Loan
Originating Software with a cut off marks of 50 per cent
and since the appellant had secured less than 50 per
cent, therefore she has not been found to be eligible and
her application has been rejected. It is also pointed out
by the learned counsel for the bank that it is an
unsecured loan, therefore merit criteria is required to be
applied.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record. The Model Education Loan
Scheme for pursuing higher education in India and
abroad issued by the Indian Banks' Association which
has been placed on record clearly states that the objective
of the Scheme is outlined to provide financial support
from the banking system to the meritorious students for
pursuing higher education in India or abroad.
The eligibility condition mentioned in the Scheme is
required to be read in consonance with the object of the
Scheme and even otherwise note therein clearly mentions
that it would be for the banks to consider if a meritorious
student (who qualifies for a seat under merit quota) is
eligible for loan under this Scheme even if the student
chooses to pursue a course under Management Quota.
Undisputedly, in this case the appellant had
secured only 49 per cent marks in the qualifying
examination and therefore the loan application has been
returned by rejecting the case by communication dated
07.11.2020 which clearly records the reasons for
rejection. It mentions that the appellant's RSM score
achieved in LOS is less than 50.
So far as the judgment in the matter of Devika
Soniraj versus the Zonal Manager, Bank of India and
another is concerned though the said judgment has only
persuasive value but we have perused the judgment and
we find that the learned Judge in that case also had
taken note of the various schemes and had reached to
the conclusion that the object of the Educational Loan
Scheme formulated by the bank in compliance with the
circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India having
statutory force is to ensure that meritorious students
should not be deprive of the opportunity to pursue higher
education merely on the ground that he/she does not
have resources for the same. In that case, learned Single
Judge had granted relief taking note of the fact that the
petitioner therein was allotted seat in BAMS course
through the centralised allotment process of the State
Government on the basis of her rank in the National
Eligibility Entrance Test. Hence, that was the case for
seeking loan on merit.
Hence, the judgment relied upon by the learned
counsel for the appellant cannot be applied in the present
case where the rejection is on the ground of not meeting
the merit criteria.
Having regard to the above factual and legal
position we are of the opinion that no error has been
committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the
writ petition. We find no ground to interfere in this
appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
The connected application is also dismissed.
(Prakash Shrivastava, C.J.)
(Krishna Rao, J.)
