FARIS SHEREEF v KERALA GRAMIN BANK (WP(C) Nos. 43113/2023 & 201/2024)

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 29[TH] 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 29[TH] 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 ## 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 12 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 201/2024** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit -P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10-112022 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 13 ## **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 14 **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 26-52023 issued by the Indian Banks Association .**