THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO. 21595 OF 2007 DATED: 14-02-2008 Between: Shankar Singh S/o. Chotu Singh … Petitioner And The Principal, Sri Anantha Padmanabha Arts, Commerce and Science College,(Aided), Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District and another … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO. 21595 OF 2007 ORDER: The petitioner, as Record Assistant in Sri Anantha Padmanabha Arts, Commerce and Science College,(Aided), Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, has filed this writ petition for the following relief: “Declaring the inaction on the part of the sole respondent in not signing on the application form of the petitioner for obtaining personal loan from State Bank of Hyderabad, Vikarabad Branch, Ranga Reddy as illegal, arbitrary and malafide and consequently direct the sole respondent to sign on the application form dt.18-09-2007 of the petitioner for obtaining loan of Rs.60,000/- and more from the State Bank of Hyderabad, Vikarabad Branch, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. The petitioner has impleaded the Principal of the College and the Chairman and Correspondent of Sri Anantha Padmanabha Arts, Commerce and Science College,(Aided), Vikarabad, as respondents 1 and 2. The College is not a party to this writ petition. It would appear that the petitioner applied for a personal loan of Rs.60,000/- from the State Bank of Hyderabad, Vikarabad branch and approached the Principal(1st Respondent) on 18-09-2007, who refused to append his signature on the application. He took return of the application, which he had submitted to the Principal for signature and then filed this writ petition. 3. The petitioner alleges that the Principal had signed loan applications of other employees, but declined to append his signature to the petitioner’s loan application. 4. Responding to the writ petition, the first respondent-Principal filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is interalia pleaded that the petitioner submitted the application on 18-09-2007 but the college was on vacation from 30-09-2007 to 21-10-2007 and the petitioner had took back the application within three days of the submission, with a view to harass the institution and the answering respondent. It is further pleaded that the petitioner had already obtained a personal loan of Rs.35,000/- from the Andhra Bank, Vikarabad Branch in July, 2004 and failed to make the payments and the Andhra Bank declared the loan account of the petitioner as a ‘Non-performing Account’ and addressed a letter to the College on 14-11-2007 informing the College that a sum of Rs.47,712/- is over due from the petitioner and requested recovery of the said amount from the petitioner. There appears to be regnant frictions between the petitioner and the College management regarding the alleged habitual abscondence from duty on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner was also under suspension, which has since been revoked. 5. This writ petition requires to be rejected for more than one reason. Firstly, the College is not a party to the writ petition and neither the Principal nor Correspondent, who were impleaded as respondents 1 and 2 are public servants nor instrumentalities of the State, within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution; secondly as the petitioner is defaulter of a loan to the Andhra Bank, another nationalized bank, which has issued a notice to the management to recover the amounts from the petitioner, the management and, in particular, the 1st respondent could be considered to have acted rationally in declining recommending yet another personal loan sought by the petitioner; thirdly the requirement if any of appending signature to the personal loan application of the petitioner is not a public duty, which requires to be directed by a Mandamus in exercise of power, authority or jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution; and fourthly the contention of the petitioner that the Principal had counter signed the loan application forms of other employees, does not involve any equality questions as it is not the petitioner’s case that those employees are also defaulters and had been declared tobe ‘non- performing assets’ of other banks. The declining of counter signature on the petitioner’s application therefore, even if Article 14 of the Constitution were applicable, falls within rational classification. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J. Dt: 14-02-2008 Rns