High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-11-21Writ petition dismissed; No order as to costs.

W.P(C).No.26732 of 2017 (N): Joel S. Joy and Joy Joseph v Bank of Baroda and others

Case / Petition Number:W.P(C).No.26732 of 2017 (N)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2017-11-21
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed; No order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed; No order as to costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Joel S. Joy
Joy Joseph

Respondents

Bank of Baroda, Kuruppunthara Branch, Manjoor PO, Kuruppunthara, Kottayam District
The Deputy General Manager, Regional Office, Bank of Baroda, Vasudev Building, TD Road, Ernakulam
Managing Director & CEO, Bank of Baroda, C-26, G-BLOCK, Bandra, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai
The Deputy General Manager (CHNZ), Bank of Baroda, Chennai Zonal Office, Baroda Pride, No.41, IInd Floor, Luz Church Road, Mylapore, Chennai
Mangalam College of Engineering, Ettumanoor, Kottayam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Respondents

• K. M. Aneesh
• K. Santhosh Kumar (Kaliyanam)
• Adarsh Kumar
• Biju Varghese Abraham
• Dileep Chandran

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition concerns the refusal of an education loan by Bank of Baroda for the petitioners, Joel S. Joy and Joy Joseph, who sought funds for admission to Mangalam College of Engineering (Management Quota). The 1st petitioner had CBSE credentials (Exhibits P1–P2) and the petition asserts that the loan was rejected on grounds that the petitioners did not reside within the bank’s operative area and that the student’s academic record and college reputation did not inspire confidence for sanction. The respondents contend that loan decisions hinge on the applicant’s future prospects, employability, and the bank’s risk management, and that it is the bank’s prerogative to apply guidelines, especially where loans are unsecured by collateral. The court relies on constitutional provisions and jurisprudence to frame the issue: while education is a state-guaranteed objective, there is no inherent right to higher education or to educational loans. It cites Arya v. RBI and A. Kasinathan v. Canara Bank to justify the bank’s discretionary criteria, including minimum marks for management quota admissions. On a review of the record, the court agrees with the bank’s prudential stance and dismisses the petition with no order as to costs, underscoring the limited role of courts in evaluating financial lending decisions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India, Article 21AConstitution of India, Article 41Right to Education Act, 2009

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

No inherent right to higher education
No inherent right to educational loans

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that the Bank’s rejection was contrary to their credentials and the college’s recognition; Exhibits P1–P2 (CBSE marks) and Exhibits P3–P8 were intended to demonstrate academic merit and college infrastructure. They contended the bank’s mandate for location and performance criteria should not override the basic need for higher education, especially in the context of management quotas where decisions are often discretionary. The petition argued the bank’s interpretation of guidelines was excessive and inconsistent with the policy framework supporting higher education access.

Contentions of Respondents

The Bank argued that sanctioning an education loan requires assessing future prospects, job potential, and the college’s reputation; it emphasized that lending is unsecured and inherently risky, thus banks may insist on measurable criteria (e.g., academic performance) and geographic operability. It relied on jurisprudence including Arya v. RBI and A. Kasinathan v. Canara Bank to justify that there is no fundamental right to educational loans and that banks may set conditions to safeguard repayments.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Arya v. Reserve Bank of India	2015 (4) KLT 478	Positive	Used to support the proposition that there is no inherent right to educational loans and that banks may apply criteria to assess loan viability.
A. Kasinathan v. Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Town Hall Road, Madurai	Laws (Mad)(-2012-4-52)	Positive	Cited for similar reasoning on the lack of an inherent right to educational loans and the permissible criteria for loan sanctions.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against W.P(C).No.26732 of 2017 (N): Joel S. Joy and Joy Joseph v Bank of Baroda and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/30TH KARTHIKA, 1939** ## **W.P(C).No.26732 of 2017 (N)** **------------------------------------PETITIONER(S):--------------1. JOEL S. JOY, AGED 18, S/O. JOY JOSEPH, THULUSSERIL HOUSE, MUTTUCHIRA PO., KOTTAYAMDISTRICT, PIN-686613, (APPLICANT), II SEMESTER B, TECH, (COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING) STUDENT,MANGALAM COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MANGALAM HILLS PO, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686631 2. JOY JOSEPH, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, THULUSSERIL HOUSE, MUTTUCHIRA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN-686613 (CO-APPLICANT). BY ADVS.SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN SMT.C.A.SEENA RESPONDENT(S):--------------1. BANK OF BARODA, KURUPPUNTHARA BRANCH, MANJOOR PO., KURUPPUNTHARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686603, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, BANK OF BARODA, VASUDEV BUILDING, T.D.ROAD, ERNAKULAM PIN-682011. 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR & C.E.O., BANK OF BARODA, C-26, G-BLOCK, BANDRA, KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST), EAST, MUMBAI, PIN-400051, 4. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (CHNZ), BANK OF BARODA, CHENNAI ZONAL OFFICE, BARODA PRIDE, NO.41, IIND FLOOR, LUZ CURCH ROAD, MYLAPOORE, CHENNAI, PIN-600004. ADDITIONAL 5TH RESPONDENT IMPLEADED: -----------------------------------ADDL.R5. MANGALAM COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM - 686 631.** **ADDITIONAL 5TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 18.08.2017 IN I.A.NO.13334 OF 2017.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.ANEESH R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM) R1 BY ADV. SRI.ADARSH KUMAR R1 BY ADV. SRI.BIJU VARGHESE ABRAHAM R1 BY ADV. SRI.DILEEP CHANDRAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **W.P(C).No.26732 of 2017 (N) ----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-** ## **-------------------------** |**EXHIBIT P1:**|**TRUE COPYOF THE CBSE, SECONDARY SCHOOL EXAMINATION**| |---|---| ||**(10TH) SESSION 2012-14) GRADE SHEET CUM CERTIFICATE OF**| ||**PERFORMANCE WITH ROLL NO.4172476 IN THE NAME OF THE**| ||**1ST PETITIONER, DATED 19.05.2014.**| |**EXHIBIT P2:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CBSE, SENIOR SCHOOL CERTIFICATE**| ||**EXAMINATION (+2) 2016 MARKS STATEMENT WITH ROLL**| ||**NO.4810224 IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER,**| ||**DATED 21.05.2016**| |**EXHIBIT P2(A):**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CBSE,SENIOR SCHOOL CERTIFICATE**| ||**EXAMINATION (+2) 2016 CERTIFICATE WITH ROLL NO.4810224**| ||**IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER, DATED 21.05.2016.**| |**EXHIBIT P3:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE 6TH PAGE OF THE MALAYALA MANORAMA**| ||**NEWSPAPER DATED 19.03.2016 PUBLISHING THE NEW RELATING**| ||**TO THE CBSE MATHEMATICS EXAMIATION 2016.**| |**EXHIBIT P3(A):**|**TRUE COPY OF THE 6TH PAGE OF THE MALAYALA MANORAMA**| ||**NEWSPAPER DATED 15.03.2016 PUBLISHING THE NEWS RELATING**| ||**TO THE CBSE MATHEMATICS EXAMIATION 2016.**| |**EXHIBIT P 3(B:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE 10TH PAGE OF THE MALAYALA MANORAMA**| ||**NEWSPAPER DATED 16.03.2016 PUBLISHING THE NEWS RELATING**| ||**TO THE CBSE MATHEMATICS EXAMIATION 2016.**| |**EXHIBIT P3(C):**|**TRUE COPY OF THE 10TH PAGE OF THE MALAYALA MANORAMA**| ||**NEWSPAPER DATED 17/03/2016 PUBLISHING THE NEWS RELATING**| ||**TO THE CBSE MATHEMATICS EXAMIATION 2016.**| |**EXHIBIT P3(D):**|**TRUE COPY OF THE 6TH PAGE OF THE MALAYALA MANORAMA**| ||**NEWSPAPER DATED 21.03.2016 PUBLISHING THE NEWS RELATING**| ||**TO THE CBSE MATHEMATICS EXAMIATION 2016.**| |**EXHIBIT P4:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COLLEGE BROCHURE DURING 2016 DATED NIL.**| |**EXHIBIT P4(A):**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COLLEGE BROCHURE DURING 2017, AFTER**| ||**ACCREDITATION OF THE NAAC DATED NIL.**| |**EXHIBIT P5:**|**TRUE COPIES OF THEDOCUMENT SREGARDING APPROVAL OF THE**| ||**COLLEGE BY ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION**| ||**(AICTE), FILE NO.SOUTH/WEST 2814409127/2016/EOA/**| ||**CORRIGENDUM-1 DATED 11.05.2016.**| |**EXHIBIT P6:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE AFFILIATION OF THE COLLEGE TO APJ**| ||**ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY (KTU)**| ||**NO.KTU/A 456/2015 DATED 14.05.2016.**| |**EXHIBIT P7:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE FEES STRUCTURE ISSUED BY THE MANGALAM**| ||**COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING NO.MLMCE/FS /BTECH/2016/05**| ||**DATED 25.08.2016 FOR RS.5,02.500/-.**| |**EXHIBIT P8:**|**TRUE COPYOF THE LOAN APPLICATION DATED 06.09.2016 WITH**| ||**APPLICATION ID 63197 OF 2016.**| **W.P(C).No.26732 of 2017 (N) - 2 -** |**EXHIBIT P9:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN APPLICATION TO THE CANARA BANK,**| |---|---| ||**KADUTHURUTHY BRANCH DATED 06.9.2016.**| |**EXHIBIT P10:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN APPLICATION TO THE INDIAN BANK,**| ||**KADUTHURUTHY BRANCH DATED 06.09.2016.**| |**EXHIBIT P11:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RATION CARD NO.1525041816 ISSUE DBY**| ||**THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA IN WHICH THE PETITIONER IS THE**| ||**APPLICANT AND CO-APPLICANT DATED 24.12.2008.**| |**EXHIBIT P12:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED GUARANTOR FORM DATED NIL IN**| ||**THE NAME OF MR.JOBIN C. THARIAN.**| |**EXHIBIT P13:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD OF THE HONURABLE LABOUR COURT,**| ||**ERNAKULAM IN I.D NO.3/2011 DATED 17.12.2012.**| |**EXHIBIT P14:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION HISTORY FOR APPLICATION**| ||**ID 63197 OF THE VIDHYA LAKSHMI PORTAL DATED 26.03.2017.**| |**EXHIBIT P15:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE GRIEVANCE HISTORY CHAT HISTROY FOR**| ||**GRIEVANCE I.D 63197 DATED 24.2.2017.**| |**EXHIBIT P16:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMPLAINT DATED 20.02.2017.**| |**EXHIBIT P17:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMPLAINT DATED 24.02.2017**| ||**TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR & CEO**| ||**OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK.**| |**EXHIBIT P18:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA**| ||**NO.RBI/2012-13/291/RPCD.MSME&**| ||**NFS.BC.NO.46/06/12.05.2012-3 DATED 09.11.2012.**| |**EXHIBIT P19:**|**TRUECOPYOF PRINT OUT OF THE GUIDELINES OF THE INDIAN**| ||**BANK ASSOCIATION REGARDING EDUCATIONAL LOAN SCHEME.**| |**EXHIBIT P20:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA NOTIFICATION**| ||**DATED 28.04.2001.**| |**EXHIBIT P21:**|**TRUE COPYOF THE LETTER FROM THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER**| ||**OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK OF BARODA, ZONAL OFFICE,**| ||**CHENNAI IN HIS LETTER NO.CHNZ OPS MK-06/17**| ||**DATED 12.06.2017.**| |**EXHIBIT P22:**|**TRUE COPYOF THE LETTER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK**| ||**NO.BOB/KURUPP/OMBUDSMA/127 DATED 05.06.2017**| |**EXHIBIT P23:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PRINTOUT OF THE B TECH S2 EXAMINATION**| ||**2016-17(S2 RESULT) WITH HIS REGISTER NO.MLM 16CS070 OF**| ||**1ST PETITIONER DATED NIL.**| |**EXHIBIT P23(A):**|**TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET WITH HIS REGISTER**| ||**NO.MLM 16CS07 OF 1ST PETITIONER DATED 22.05.2017.**| |**EXHIBIT P23(B):**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PRINTOUT OF CHART OF GRADING AS PER**| ||**THE RECENT RECOMMENDATION OF THEUGC DATED 28TH**| ||**FEBRUARY, 2015.**| |**EXHIBIT P24:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE HONURABLE BANKING**| ||**OMBUDSMAN DATED 24.03.2017.**| **- 3 -** **W.P(C).No.26732 of 2017 (N)** **EXHIBIT P25: TRUE COPYOF THE LETTER FROM THE HONOURABLE BANKING OMBUDSMAN NO.OBO(T)NO.7211/CTS/002947/2016-17 DATED 28.06.2017. EXHIBIT P26: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC NO.27948 OF 2013 DATED 07.04.2014.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS/ANNEXURES:-------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE CIRCULAR.** **vku/-** **[ true copy ]** ## K. Vinod Chandran, J --------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.26732 of 2017-N --------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of November, 2017 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners are concerned with the rejection of an education loan by the 1[st] respondent-Bank. 2. The 1[st] petitioner is the son and the 2[nd] petitioner is the father. The 1[st] petitioner qualified the Secondary School Examination, as evidenced by Exhibit P1 and the Senior School Certificate Examination, as evidenced by Exhibit P2 from the Central Board of Secondary Education [for brevity “CBSE”]. The petitioner got admitted to the additional 5[th] respondent-College in the Management Quota. The petitioners applied for a Bank loan through online and the 1[st] respondent processed the application. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Bank rejected the application contending that the petitioners were not residing within the area of operation of the 1[st] respondent. 3. The respondent-Bank refutes the aforesaid contention of the petitioners and refers to the rejection as seen from Exhibit P21. - 2 - WP(C) No.26732 of 2017 Exhibit P21 rejected it for the following reasons:- - “a. The student's academic track record does not satisfy the Bank's guidelines for sanction of education loan. - b. The reputation of the college and employability of the student also did not give comfort to the Bank for considering the loan application favourably”. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank is that it is for the Bank to decide as to whether the student can be granted the loan especially since the loan is not sanctioned on a collateral security and it is the competency of the student to qualify in the examinations and the employability of the student which are relevant. The learned Standing Counsel also relies on a Division Bench judgment of this Court, reported in _**Arya v. Reserve Bank of India**_ **[2015 (4) KLT 478].** 4. Specific reference is made to the mark-list of the 1[st] petitioner, which, according to the Bank, does not instill confidence to grant a financial facility of this extent. The Division Bench agreed with the decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court reported in _**A.Kasinathan v. Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Town Hall Road, Madurai**_ **(Laws (Mad)(-2012-4-52),** in which it was held so in - 3 - WP(C) No.26732 of 2017 ## paragraphs 10 and 12: "10. No inherent right to educational loan :- From the Scheme of Article 21A of the Constitution, it is the primary obligation of the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of 6-14 years and in the recent judgment dated 12.4.2012, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of right of children to free and compulsory education under Right to Education Act, 2009 which provides for free and compulsory education to children between age of 6 and 14 years and mandates government/aided/non-minority and unaided schools to reserve 25% of the students for these children. There is no such fundamental right to higher education. Of course, under Article 41, the State, shall within its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to education. In terms of Article 21A and Article 41, while there is a right to education, there is no inherent right to educational loans. ## xxx xxx xxx 12. As is well known, while lending loan, the main concern of the Bank is safeguarding the amount which was sanctioned and advanced and chance of getting the money back with interest. In order to ensure prompt repayment of the educational loan, Bank is emphasizing the future prospects of the students, employment potential. For getting jobs/ employment in different parts of the country/abroad, one of the criteria is academic performance and there is nothing wrong for the Banks in stipulating 60% marks for the students who secured admission under "Management Quota". ## 5. The Bank hence has to consider the loan application keeping in mind the possibility of realizing the amounts disbursed with interest. This has a direct bearing on the prospects of the WP(C) No.26732 of 2017 - 4 - student, since the loan can be realized only by repayment after the student gets employment. The student was not admitted on merit and had joined the course in the management quota. This Court does not find any reason to differ from the decision of the Division Bench of this Court; nor are there any grounds to interfere with the decision of the Bank. The writ petition would stand dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/K.Vinod Chandran Judge. vku/- [ true copy ]