IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.No.4020 of 2011 P.Uyarthi .. Petitioner -vs- 1. The Regional Manager Canara Bank Trichy Region, Trichy 2. The Manager Canara Bank Thirumazhapadi Branch Ariyalur District .. Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records pertaining to the orders of the second respondent in Ref.EL./2010-11/RA 13.11.2010 and quash the same and direct the respondents to sanction and disburse a sum of Rs.3,26,500/- (Three lakhs twenty six thousand five hundred only) towards educational loan for undergoing the B.E.(Mechanical Engineering) Course at Periyar Maniammai University, Vallam, Tanjore District. For Petitioner :: Mr.S.Kamadevan For Respondents :: Mr.Pandurangan ORDER The writ petitioner was admitted in the first year B.E. (Mechanical) Degree Course for the academic year 2010-11 in Periyar Maniammai University, Vallam, Thanjavur District, which is a deemed to be university as per Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act. After admission, the petitioner has applied for educational loan, since he comes from an agricultural family. That application came to be rejected by the respondent-bank under the impugned order on the ground that as per the guidelines for sanction of educational loan, a student who gets admission in the management quota shall secure at least 60% marks in the qualifying examination and as per the particulars furnished by the petitioner, he has obtained admission under the management quota and secured only 52% marks. It is admitted by the petitioner that while https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ applying for the educational loan he has stated that he joined in the said university under the management quota. However, that is a mistake and that has been clarified by the university itself in the letter dated 19.11.2010 stating and certifying that there is no Government/management quota in the said university. The university has also issued a bona fide certificate regarding the fee structure based on which the application was made. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent-bank, on instructions, would submit that it is as per the scheme framed by the Indian Banks' Association called 'Revised Model Education Loan Scheme', in respect of educational loan to students under management quota, the qualification required is as follows:- "To permit following modifications for sanction of education loan to students who have secured admission under Management Quota: * Student should have secured atleast 60% marks in the qualifying examination. * Circles should restrict 10% of the cases out of total loans sanctioned under Management Quota." Therefore, according to him, the bank, which is bound by its own scheme, has correctly rejected the said application. 3. On a perusal of the entire papers, especially the communication from the university itself, it is clear that the petitioner was not admitted in the management quota. Merely because the petitioner has stated in his letter to the bank that he was admitted in the management quota, that is not going to change the real facts which have been elicited by the university itself. Moreover, being a deemed to be university as per the provisions of the Act, when once the admission has been made in accordance with the norms prescribed, it cannot be said that the petitioner's admission in the university is invalid. In any event, for the purpose of deciding the qualification of a student to be admitted in a university or college, it is the university or college, being the competent authority, which decides as per the statutes and guidelines. The bank is not deciding about the qualification of a student for admission to a course. Inasmuch as the petitioner's admission in the university has been certified to be a bona fide admission in a deemed to be university, which is an educational institution, it is for the bank to decide the matter on merit about the sanction of loan alone, namely, in respect of the quantum of amount, about the security for repayment and other incidental matters which are relevant. Even otherwise, as per the records, the petitioner's admission is not under the management quota. The rejection on the ground that the petitioner has secured only 52% marks in the qualifying examination cannot be sustained. In such view of the matter, I am of the considered view that in all fairness, considering the policy of the Government in liberally granting educational loan for the purpose of imparting education in the country, the application must be reconsidered by the respondents. In such view of the matter, the impugned order stands set aside and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to reconsider the issue in the light of the above said decision and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. ss Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To 1. The Regional Manager Canara Bank Trichy Region, Trichy 2. The Manager Canara Bank Thirumazhapadi Branch Ariyalur District + 1 cc to Mr. S. Kamadevan, Advocate SR No.18297 + 1 cc to Mr. S. Pandurangan, Advocate SR No.18198 SA(CO) SR/16.3.2011 W.P.No.4020 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/