S SUGITHA Vs. BRANCH MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.N.Murugesan, learned counsel takes notice for the first respondent and Mr.K.M.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the second respondent. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

(2.) The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to sanction educational loan to the petitioner pursuant to the application dated 14.12.2009 for a sum of Rs.3,10,400/- for the petitioner's entire studies of B.E. Degree in Electronics and Communication Engineering within a prescribed time frame.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that after she completed the Higher Secondary Course Examination in March 2009, applied for selection to Engineering course through Anna University and based on the marks secured by her in the Higher Secondary examination, she was selected for B.E. Electronics and Communication Engineering course and allotted a seat in Arunachala College of Engineering for Women, Manavillai, Vellichanthai Post, Kanyakumari District. The college is affiliated to the Anna University and the course is approved by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). According to the petitioner, her father is an agricultural coolie having an annual income of Rs.12,000/- and since her father could not afford to pay the fees for her Engineering degree, she approached the first respondent bank for sanction of educational loan of total sum of Rs.3,10,400/- at the rate of Rs.77,600/- per year for four years. The petitioner would further submit that there was great difficulty for her to even secure an application form for grant of educational loan and that having secured such form, submitted the same on 14.12.2009 and the first respondent bank did not sanction the educational loan and therefore, the petitioner submitted a petition before the second respondent on the grievance day on 08.03.2010. According to the petitioner, the refusal to sanction the educational loan by the first respondent is violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner and therefore, she is before this Court for the above relief.