Kerala Gramin Bank, Represeted By Its ... vs The Kerala State Commission For ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 6223 Ker

Kerala High Court

Kerala Gramin Bank, Represeted By Its ... vs The Kerala State Commission For ... on 29 February, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
   THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1945
                      WP(C) NO. 43113 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

          FARIS SHEREEF, AGED 20 YEARS
          S/O SHARIF.O., RIVER VIEW, KURATTIKADU, MANNAR(P.O.),
          ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689622

          BY ADV K.RAJESH KANNAN



RESPONDENT:

          KERALA GRAMIN BANK, MANNAR BRANCH, MANNAR (P.O.),
          ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN - 689622

          BY ADV JAWAHAR JOSE


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.02.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).201/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 43113 OF 2023 & con.case
                                        2


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                     PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
  THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 10TH PHALGUNA,
                                      1945
                          WP(C) NO. 201 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

                KERALA GRAMIN BANK, REPRESETED BY ITS GENERAL
                MANAGER, RECOVERY AND LEGAL WING, KGB TOWERS,
                UPHILL ROAD, MALAPPURAM., PIN - 676505

                JAWAHAR JOSE
                SAFEER BAWA A.S.



RESPONDENTS:

     1          THE KERALA STATE COMMISSION FOR MINORITIES
                REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MAGALAM LANE,
                JAWAHAR NAGAR, SASTHAMANGALAM (P.O),
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695010

     2          TITUS K.J., KALALRIKKAL HOUSE, VELLAD (PO),
                KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670571

                BY ADV R.T.PRADEEP


         THIS     WRIT   PETITION     (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 29.02.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).43113/2023, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 43113 OF 2023 & con.case
                                        3

                                     JUDGMENT

[WP(C) Nos.43113/2023, 201/2024]

I am considering these two writ petitions together, though

the petitioners are different in them, because the essential

underlying issues are analogous.

2. While, in W.P.(C)No.43113/2023, the petitioner - who is

a student - seeks a direction to the respondent - Bank to favour

him with an educational loan, as prayed for in Ext.P9

application; the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.201/2024 - which is the

Bank mentioned above, namely the Kerala Gramin Bank,

impugns Ext.P5 order of the first respondent - Kerala State

Commission for Minorities (for short "Commission"), wherein

they have been ordered to offer the said loan to the daughter of

the second respondent therein.

3. Sri.Jawahar Jose - learned standing counsel for the

Kerala Gramin Bank, argued that, as per the Scheme applicable

to his client, for the purpose of an educational loan for a student

who has obtained admission in a college otherwise than on

merit, he/she will have to attain a minimum benchmark in the

qualifying examination. He argued that, as far as both these

cases are concerned, the petitioners have no case that they had WP(C) NO. 43113 OF 2023 & con.case

the requisite benchmark fixed by his client for availing of a

loan; and therefore, that they are not entitled to be granted the

same. He argued that, however, the "Commission" did not

consider this aspect at all, but issued the order impugned in

W.P.(C)No.201/2024, directing his client to grant the

educational loan, which has now constrained them to approach

this Court.

4. Sri.Jawahar Jose, in support of his contention, invited

my attention to the "Karnataka Selection of Candidates for

Admission to Nursing, Pharmacy and Physiotherapy Courses

Rules, 2003" saying that, as evident therefrom, only those

students who had been admitted to the courses under the

entrance examination conducted by the educational Authorities

could be construed to be in the "merit quota"; while, all others

can only be construed to be accommodated against the

management seats. He vehemently argued that, going by the

documents produced in these petitions, the petitioners cannot

have a case that they were not admitted under the

"management quota"; and therefore, that the provisions of this

Scheme applicable to his client, will have to be abided by them,

without variation. He concluded, seeking my attention to the WP(C) NO. 43113 OF 2023 & con.case

Master Circular issued by his client on educational loans, to say

that, in the case of a student who has been admitted to a

college in the "management quota", he must obtain 60% marks

in all subjects, other than languages, with a minimum of 55%

marks in individual subjects, in the qualifying examination. He

argued that the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.43113/2023 and the

daughter of the second respondent in the other case, have not

been able to attain this; and thus prayed that W.P.

(C)No.43113/2023 be dismissed, while W.P.(C)No.201/2024 be

allowed.

5. Sri.K.Rajesh Kannan - learned counsel for the petitioner

in W.P.(C)No.43113/2023, however, argued that, even going by

the afore assertions of the Bank, his client is entitled to be

granted educational loan because Ext.P6 certificate of the

college would indicate that he was selected through a common

entrance test conducted by the said institution. He argued that,

therefore, the petitioner can only be construed to have been

admitted against the "merit quota" and not against the

"management quota"; and therefore, that the insistence on him,

to have obtained the benchmark as per the Master Circular of

the Bank, is illegal and unlawful. He relied upon various WP(C) NO. 43113 OF 2023 & con.case

judgments of this Court, including Arya v. Reserve Bank of India

[2015 (4) KLT 478], in substantiation.

6. The learned counsel for the second respondent in W.P.

(C)No.201/2024, had similar submissions to make, but added to

it saying that, when his client belongs to a disadvantaged

section of the society, it is incumbent upon the Bank to support

him with necessary financial support, as entitled to him. He

argued that, when the Bank refused to do so, his client was

constrained to approach the first respondent - Commission, to

obtain Ext.P5 order in W.P.(C)No.201/2024; and prayed that the

said writ petition be dismissed.

7. Sri.R.T.Pradeep - learned Standing Counsel for the first

respondent - Commission in W.P.(C) No.201/2024 submitted

that his client exercised jurisdiction only because the daughter

of the second respondent in this case belongs to a very

disadvantaged community and the denial of education loan to

her would be extremely harsh. He, however, left it to this Court

to take an apposite decision

8. When I evaluate and consider the afore rival

contentions, it is clear that there are broadly two issues that WP(C) NO. 43113 OF 2023 & con.case

must seize the attention of this Court, namely:

(a) Whether the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.43113/2023 and

the daughter of the second respondent in W.P.(C) No.201/2024

can be construed to be admitted to the educational course in

question under the "merit quota".

(b) Even if it is otherwise, would it be possible for this

Court to direct the Bank to give them educational loan because,

they had been admitted by the college through an entrance

examination conducted by them.

9. As far as the second of the afore limbs is concerned,

the learned Division Bench of this Court in Arya (supra) has

declared the law that, where the admission can be found to be

on merit, notwithstanding whether it is based on a common

entrance examination or otherwise, the student would obtain

the right to avail the loan. However, there is force in the

submissions of Sri.Jawahar Jose, that the factum of the student

obtaining admission in the "merit quota" is to be judged, as far

as the institution - which is in Karnataka, on the basis of

stipulations in the "Rules". When one examines the "Rules", it

becomes manifest that the allotment of seats in Karnataka is WP(C) NO. 43113 OF 2023 & con.case

ordered to be shared by the Government and by the

management. When it comes to the "management seats", it is

stipulated that 25% of the total intake will be under the said

quota and that the management will fill up the said seat on a

"merit basis". In contradistinction, it then provides that "all

the Government seats shall be filled through the selection

committee under these Rules" (sic).

10. Obviously, therefore, there is a marked difference in

the manner in which the seats are to be filled; and the axiomatic

question therefore, arises whether the seats in the

"management quota" is allocated by the college in question

strictly on the basis of merit, though the Rules say that they

shall do so only on a "merit basis." This is an issue that has not

been considered in Arya (supra), particularly when the Circular

applicable to the Bank makes it limpid that, in cases where

students are admitted not on the basis of merit per se, but

under the discretion of the management, they would have to

obtain a particular benchmark.

11. Interestingly, when the first respondent - Commission

in W.P.(C)No.201/2024, considered the claim of the second

respondent therein, this aspect was not even adverted to, much WP(C) NO. 43113 OF 2023 & con.case

less considered.

12. As far as the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.43113/2023 is

concerned, as I have already said above, his learned counsel -

Sri.Rajesh Kannan, argues that Ext.P6 would indicate that his

client was admitted on merit.

13. Indubitably therefore, it would not be possible for this

Court to come to the aid of the students in these writ petitions,

because when the Circular applicable to the Bank provides for

the grant of the educational loan in a particular manner, the

same will have to be followed, unless it is challenged before this

Court - which it has not been.

14. Going by the guidelines which are part of the Master

Circular applicable to the Bank qua educational loans, it

perspicuously provides that, as far as "management quota" is

concerned, the students must secure the aforementioned cut-off

marks, for being granted the benefit under it. Obviously, what

is relevant is whether the students involved in these cases have

been admitted under the "management quota" or the "merit

quota".

15. Unfortunately, apart from the documents on record, WP(C) NO. 43113 OF 2023 & con.case

there is nothing else to establish either of the afore factum

conclusively; and therefore, am of the view that the students

must be given an opportunity to approach the Bank

appropriately, so that if they are able to establish that their

admissions are based solely on merit under the applicable

Rules, they can be offered the loan. Of course, when I say so, I

am fully cognizant of the submissions of Sri.Jawahar Jose that,

as per the Rules "the petitioners cannot have a case otherwise

than that they have been admitted under the "management

quota" (sic).

16. That said, since the "Commission" has proceeded

without considering any of the afore aspects, I am certain that

the order impugned in W.P.(C)No.201/2024 cannot find my

favour; and hence do not deem it necessary to answer the

further submissions of the bank that it did not have jurisdiction

to consider it in the first place. This issue certainly will have to

be left open because, answering it in this judgment would only

be academic in nature, once the order itself is found to be in

favour in law.

In the afore circumstances, without entering into the

merits of the rival contentions as afore any further, I dispose of WP(C) NO. 43113 OF 2023 & con.case

these writ petitions in the following manner:

(a) W.P.(C)No.43113/2023 is allowed, leaving liberty to

the petitioner to approach the Bank with an appropriate

representation, supported by all documents, to establish that he

has not been admitted under the "management quota" but

under the "merit quota". It will be up to the competent

Authority of the Bank to consider this aspect and take an

apposite decision, which shall be done not later than one month

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

(b) W.P.(C)No.201/2024 is allowed and Ext.P5 is set

aside; with liberty being reserved to the second respondent to

again approach the Bank with an appropriate representation in

the same manner as in direction (a) above; with a concomitant

direction to the Bank to act as directed in it, within the time

frame fixed.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu WP(C) NO. 43113 OF 2023 & con.case

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 201/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit -P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10-11- 2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit -P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY/OBJECTIONS DATED 17-12-2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit -P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 19-11-2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit -P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR TITLED "MODEL EDUCATIONAL LOAN SCHEME" ISSUED BY THE INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION.

Exhibit -P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MARKSHEET OF THE DAUGHTER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE BOARD OF HIGHER SECONDARY EXAMINATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.

Exhibit -P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27-10-2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

WP(C) NO. 43113 OF 2023 & con.case

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43113/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 17.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE (ROLL NO.4314730) DATED 6.5.2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE HIGHER SECONDARY EXAMINATION CERTIFICATE (ROLL NO.75926) DATED 30.7.2021/7.9.2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION REF:

RGUHS/AFF/COA-01-89/VI/2020-21 DATED 9.10.2020 PUBLISHED BY THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, KARNATAKA

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE SHOWING THE LIST OF COLLEGES PUBLISHED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE NURSING COUNCIL SHOWING THE COLLEGE IN WHICH THE PETITIONER IS STUDYING NAMELY "SRI. RAGHAVENDRA COLLEGE OF NURSING, BANGALORE" FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2020-21 AS SL. NO.308

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ESTIMATION CERTIFICATE REF NO.SRCON/ADMN/B.SC.NSG/2021-22 DATED 2.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF SRI.

RAGHAVENDRA COLLEGE OF NURSING, BENGALURU TO THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NON-CREAMY LAYER CERTIFICATE NO.81539176 DATED 4.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE MANNAR TO THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME CERTIFICATE NO.81535602 DATED 4.11.2023 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANNAR VILLAGE OFFICE CERTIFYING THAT THE ANNUAL WP(C) NO. 43113 OF 2023 & con.case

FAMILY INCOME OF THE PETITIONER IS RS.46,000/-

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR EDUCATIONAL LOAN SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT BANK DATED 8.11.2023

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 9.11.2023 WITH RESPECT TO EXHIBIT-P9

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 10.11.2023 WITH RESPECT TO ACCEPTANCE OF EXHIBIT-P9 BY RESPONDENT BANK

Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN BRANCH MANAGER, GRAMIN BANK, KOLLAM AND ANOTHER VS.

RAJENDRAN.P. AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN 2015 (3) KHC 561

Exhibit P12(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN MANAGER, ANDHRA BANK, TVM VS. RESHMA SYAM S. REPORTED IN 2014 (4) KHC 704

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

Exhibit-R(1)(a) The true copy of the relevant pages of the circular dated 19-11-2013 issued by the Kerala Grain Bank.

Exhibit-R(1)(b) True copy of the guidelines dated 26-5- 2023 issued by the Indian Banks Association .