ALIDA S. JOLLY, AGED 19 YEARS, D/O. JOLLY, MUNDACKAL HOUSE, THIRUMARADI P.O., KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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. Vs. 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.

(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 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 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.