Alida S. Jolly v. State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/26TH MAGHA, 1938** **WP(C).No. 16269 of 2014 (G) ----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** ## **-------------** **ALIDA S.JOLLY, AGED 19 YEARS, D/O.JOLLY, MUNDACKAL HOUSE, THIRUMARADI P.O., KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.N.SURESH** **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** ## **2. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,** **CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA- 400 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR.** **3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ZONAL OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 036.** **4. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REGIONAL OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 036.** **5. THE BRANCH MANAGER,** **STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KAKKOOR BRANCH, KOOTHATTUKULAM, KAKKOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-686 662.** **R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. MABLE C. KURIAN R3-R5 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC, SBT** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **SKG** ## **WP(C).No. 16269 of 2014 (G)** ## **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** ## **-----------------------** **EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE WITH MARKLIST OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY BOARD OF HIGHER SECONDARY EXAMINATION. EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, MANGALORE TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 22/7/2013 ISSUED BY SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, MANGALORE WITH DETAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE OF WHOLE COURSES. EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 29/10/2013 ISSUED BY THE SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, MANGALORE. EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.11.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27/11/2013 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P7: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 4.1.2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN, TRIVANDRUM. EXHIBIT-P8: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 2.5.2014 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P9: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 2/5/2014 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P10: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 28/4/2001 NO.RPCD.PLNFS.BC.NO.83/06.12.05/2000-01 OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. EXHIBIT-P11: TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.RPCF. SME & NFS.BC NO.69/06.12.05/2009-10 DATED 12/4/2010 OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA.** ## **WP(C).No. 16269 of 2014 (G)** **----------------------------** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------** |**EXHIBIT R5(A)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE EDUCATION LOAN SCHEME ISSUED BY**| |---|---| ||**THE RESERVE BANK OF INDA DATED 02.05.2001**| ||**BEARING NO.RPCD.PLNFS.FS.BC**| ||**NO.83/6.12.2005/2000-01**| |**EXHIBIT R5(B)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION MODEL**| ||**EDUCATION LOAN SCHEME OF SEPTEMBER 2012**| |**EXHIBIT R5(C)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE MASTER CIRCULAR BEARING**| ||**NO.PSB18/2011 DATED 13.06.2011 RELATING TO SBT**| ||**EDUCATION LOAN SCHEME**| |**EXHIBIT R5(D)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE MASTER CIRCULAR ON EDUCATION**| ||**LOAN BEARING PSB01 OF 2012 DATED 10.1.2012**| |**EXHIBIT R5(E)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE MASTER CIRCULAR ON EDUCATION**| ||**LOAN BEARING PSB 23/2012 DATED 20.11.2012**| |**EXHIBIT R5(F)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE**| ||**PETITIONER ALIDA.S.JOLLY DATED 25.11.2013 TO**| ||**RECONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER**| |**EXHIBIT R5(G)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER DATED 22.1.2014**| ||**SUBMITTED BEFORE THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN**| ||**/TRUE COPY/**| **P.S. TO JUDGE** **SKG** **CR** ## Devan Ramachandran, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.16269 of 2014 G ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15[th] day of February, 2017 ## **JUDGMENT** In strictu sensu, the petitioner may not be able to obtain relief in this writ petition since the issue raised stands squarely covered against her by a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in **Arya K.R. v. Assistant General Manager** (2015 KHC 884). Bound by such precedent, obviously I would get no leeway or latitude to provide relief to the petitioner contrary to the express terms of the judgment, the application of which would indubitably lead to the rejection of the petitioner's claim. However, from the pleadings on record, I am of the view that this Court cannot turn a blind eye to the trepidation of the petitioner who only wants financial assistance to pursue her studies. WPC 16269/14 2 2. The pleadings compendiously would show that the petitioner belongs to a family suffering from abject impecuniousness. Even in such circumstances of aridity and exiguity she has done tolerably well to pursue her studies and reach a level where she is now studying at the Srinivas School of Architecture, Mangalore after securing more than 78% in the Higher Secondary Examination. This writ petition was filed in the year 2014 and obviously more than two years have elapsed since it was filed. I am told by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has now completed the second year of the course and it would require three more years to complete it. He asserts that the petitioner is desolate and despondent in not being able to get financial assistance to complete her studies and she is going through hard daily struggle in such pursuit with little or no financial support being able to be given to her by her family in studies. The learned counsel also says WPC 16269/14 3 that the petitioner's mother had died after a prolonged treatment for cancer and this has plunged the family into a greater financial constraints. 3. It appears that the petitioner had applied for an educational loan from State Bank of Travancore but that was denied on the ground that she had not secured 60% marks in one of the qualifying subjects in the Higher Secondary Examination, which, according to the Bank, is a mandatory provision of the Scheme relating to grant of educational loan. The Bank relies on the Educational Loan Scheme issued by the Reserve Bank of India, appended as Exhibit R5(a) along with the counter affidavit. The Bank says that since the petitioner has obtained admission under the management quota, the condition that she obtain 60% marks in all subjects in the qualifying examination is an imperative and inflexible condition. They say that as is obvious from her mark list, which is produced as Exhibit P1, she has not obtained WPC 16269/14 4 such minimum percentile in one of the subjects, namely Chemistry in the qualifying examination. Therefore, they assert that they were justified in rejecting the loan applied for by the petitioner. 4. I see that the petitioner, though not given a specific letter by the Bank showing such rejection, had approached the learned Banking Ombudsman, who had considered the matter and issued Exhibit P8 order. The petitioner assails this order and the consequential Exhibit P9 communication issued by the Bank informing that her request has been rejected, as being illegal and unlawful and in violation of her fundamental right to education. 5. I notice that the specific contention of the petitioner is that Exhibit P8 order has been issued by the learned Ombudsman without notice to her and without hearing her. However, I can find no infirmity in the same because the learned Ombudsman has only recorded that the Bank was within its legal confines to have rejected WPC 16269/14 5 the loan since the petitioner has not obtained 60% in one of the subjects in the qualifying examination. This view of the learned Ombudsman is beyond fault because the Division Bench in **Arya K.R.** (supra) has already concluded that a candidate has to obtain 60% marks as per the Scheme and that such stipulation is valid and intra vires. In such view of the matter, it cannot be said that the order of the learned Ombudsman suffers from any vice. However, it cannot be lost sight of that the learned Ombudsman has, in fact, said that the petitioner's case has to be re-considered by the Bank as a special case. This has obviously not been done and the Bank has issued Exhibit P9 without adverting to such suggestion but merely recording that her application for loan has been rejected and that it has been approved by the learned Ombudsman. 6. I do not think that the Bank has applied its mind correctly to the situation, especially taking into account WPC 16269/14 6 the abjection and circumstances of melancholia that the petitioner has faced in her life and without appreciating that in spite of this the petitioner has pursued her studies. The circumstances which the petitioner has faced in life should have been noticed by the Bank because it would obviously lead to an inference that deserves latitude because the petitioner has not been able to perform exemplarily in her examinations because of the constraints that she faced in her life, including the death of her mother due to cancer. I am of the view that the Bank ought to have given some benefit so as to extend her a helping hand to complete her studies. 7. In such circumstances, I direct respondents 3 to 5 to consider the request of the petitioner for financial assistance to pursue her studies under the Educational Loan Scheme or under any other available method as has been suggested by the learned Ombudsman in Exhibit P8 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of WPC 16269/14 7 a copy of this judgment. Since the petitioner has already completed a couple of years of her studies, such assistance will have to be provided immediately, if she is eligible. Otherwise, the purpose of such exercise would be rendered completely superfluous and redundant. With the above directions, the writ petition is ordered. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs and the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. Devan Ramachandran, Judge tkv