A.Deepika, v. The Branch Manager,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.06.2018 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.No.1661 of 2018 A.Deepika ... Petitioner Vs.
The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Thalaingayiur Branch Vedharanyam Tk.
Nagapattinam Dist.
... Respondent Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned rejection order dated 02.11.2017 passed by the respondent and quash the same and consequently to direct the respondent to provide educational loan to the petitioner within stipulated time prescribed by the Indian Bank Association and to pay the loan sum of Rs.3,40,000/-(Three Lakhs and Forty Thousand only) for pursuing B.Sc Nursing Course in 2016 to 2020. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Vijendran For Respondent : Ms.S.R.Sumathy
O R D E R
The petitioner has come forward with the aforesaid prayer challenging the impugned rejection order dated 02.11.2017 and a consequent direction to the respondent to provide educational loan to her within the stipulated time for pursuing B.Sc Nursing Course for the academic year 2016 to 2020. 2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has completed Higher Secondary Examination in the year 2016-2017 and joined B.Sc., Nursing course in M/s.Karthikeyan College, Anthananpettai, Nagapattinam. The Indian Nursing Council has permitted the student for B.SC (Nursing) course. Accordingly, the petitioner has been admitted in the abovesaid college. The college has a fixed fee structure including transportation and mess. Since, the petitioner belongs to a down trodden community and has no other means to pay the fees, she approached the
respondent bank for an educational loan. When the petitioner approached the respondent bank, the bank insisted the petitioner to bring Income certificate, Identity card, Address proof and other relavant documents for the purpose of availing loan. Though, an application along with relavant documents was submitted, the respondent bank had refused to grant loan to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner caused a lawyer's notice on 20.07.2017.
3.According to the petitioner, the respondent bank is duty bound to grant educational loan and it is the policy of the government that once the guidelines are fulfilled, the bank cannot prevent a poor student from pursuing her studies more particularly, when the petitioner belongs to weaker section of the society. Further, the petitioner's request was rejected on many grounds one being that "Nursing course does not come under IBA Educational Loan Scheme" and also that her father is a defaulter. According to the petitioner, even assuming that her father is a defaulter and several loans were pending against him, with regard to this loan, it is only the petitioner who is going to pay the money after completion of the course and hence, the respondent ought not to have rejected the request of the petitioner seeking educational loan.
4.The respondent had filed a counter stating that the Nursing Course and Management quota are outside the purview of IBA Educational Loan Scheme and the petitioner was admitted under Management quota and not on merits. It is further stated that the petitioner has got 600 out of 1200 and got admitted under Management quota and for availing educational loan, the candidates should possess mininmum of 60%. That apart, the petitioner's father has committed default in repayment of loan availed from various other banks and that several suits are pending against him. The petitioner has failed to submit the salary certificate of her father and also the petitioner's father has a poor credit history with score of 300 only and he has already four overdue loans and hence the bank has rejected the petitioner's request for loan.
As per revised IBA Model Educational Loan Scheme, for pusuing higher education in India and abroad, the petitioner is not eligible for educational loan and hence according to the respondent, the rejection of the petitioner's request for educational loan is correct. 5.Heard both sides.
6.The contention of the petitioner is that she had scored 600 out of 1200 and had joined B.Sc., nursing course and as per the revised IBA guidelines on Model Education Loan Scheme, loan is to be given to students, who are pursing B.Sc. Nursing course also. Admittedly, the petitioner has not produced the salary certificate of her father. That apart, the
petitioner's father is a defaulter.
7.For better understanding, Clause 7 of SBI-Student Loan Scheme is extracted hereunder:
"7.Security:
a)upto Rs.4 lacs.
● Co-obligation of parents.
● No Security.
b)Above Rs.4 lacs and upto Rs.7.50 lacs.
● Co-obligation of parents together with collateral security in the form of suitable third party guarantee. The bank may, at its discretion, in exceptional cases, waive third party guarantee if satisfied with the networth/means of parent/s who would be executing the documents as "joint borrower".
From the above, it is clear that the petitioner's request has to be accepted as there is co-obligation on the part of the petitioner's father.
8.However, in this case, the petitioner's father has not produced the salary certificate and that in case of default by the student, naturally the amount will have to be recovered from the parents. From the record produced by the bank, it is amply clear that the petitioner's father is a defaulter and that several suits are pending against him for non-payment of loans availed by him. Whenever a loan is granted, the bank will definitely expect the loan to be returned by the borrower.
9. That apart, by an order dated 21.07.2017 in W.P.No.7516 of 2016, I have held that in view of Model Educational Loan Scheme for pursuing Higher Education in India and Abroad, fixation of 60% of marks as eligibility for education loan by the Bank, cannot be faulted with.
10. Banks/Financial Institutions are giving loan to several persons under various political pressures and ultimately public money is being misappropriated and defaulters flee from the country. Innocent employees, who are forced to sign the loan grant are ultimately taken to task. Whether the loan amount is small or huge, it needs to be recovered from the defaulters. Rather running behind the defaulters, a loan can better be rejected at the threshold by identifying a person's credentials. In this case, the Bank has rightly done so, as the petitioner's father has defaulted in paying serveral loans.
11.Hence, I find that except the reason that nursing course does not come under IBA guidelines, all other reasons are found to be sound and the petitioner is not entitled for the loan under the Model Educational Loan Scheme. Accordingly, the Writ Petition Stands dismissed. No costs.
s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-V) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar rm To:
The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Thalaingayiur Branch Vedharanyam Tk.
Nagapattinam Dist.
+1 CC to Ms.S.T. Sumathy, Advocate sr 35262.
+1 CC to Mr.P. Vijendran, Advocate sr 35390.
W.P.No.1661 of 2018 SP(28/06/2018)