AJAY BRAHME Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition preferred under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of an appropriate writ in nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the loan application of the petitioner as the same has been rejected in a mala fide manner and further to direct them to grant loan to him for professional education under the Gyan Jyoti Scheme. It is also prayed in the writ petition that a direction should be issued to the respondents to grant instalments.

(2.) The petitioner, at present, is prosecuting his study in the Professional Law Institute at Bhopal. The father of the petitioner is working in the post of Hawaldar in the Security Department of State Bank of India and is presently posted at State Bank of India Branch, Balaghat. It is averred that the salary of the petitioner's father is Rs 8,055.00 per month, and after deductions he receives Rs. 3,400.30. It is pleaded in the petition that the State Bank of India has introduced a scheme known as Gyan Jyoti Scheme for educational loan with the purpose to meet tuition and other fees, maintenance costs for the purpose of persuing studies in recognised schools, colleges or institutions. The said scheme also provides for grant of loan for the purpose of technical and professional studies in India and abroad. The scheme was brought into existence in July, 1992. In the year 1995 it was modified by revised instructions. The petitioner was selected after appearing in the competitive entrance examination. For getting financial assistance to complete his studies, he applied for loan under the said Scheme to the Balaghat Branch of State Bank of India in the month of Oct., 1998. According to the Scheme 90% of the total cost can be forwarded as loan for the technical/professional study and the study of law is considered to be professional one. It is stated that the total cost of study for complete span of five years comes to Rs. 2,55,000.00. It is put forth that a notice was received by the petitioner on 15.5.1999 to deposit fees of Rs. 21,750.00. It is alleged that in spite of the fact that the father of the petitioner is working and has balance of his Provident Fund of Rs. 1,60,000.00 with the Bank and had applied for grant of loan in the month of Oct., 1998 the loan amount was not disbursed by the Branch Manager of the Bank on the plea that it would be considered by the Regional Manager. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 3004/99 wherein a direction was issued that the respondent No. 2, the Regional Manager, State Bank of India, shall decide the application of loan within a period of fifteen days. The prayer of the petitioner was not acceded to without assigning any reason, which is arbitrary and violates the spirit of the Scheme. With these averments, the prayer has been made, as has been indicated hereinabove.

(3.) A return has been filed by the respondent. State Bank of India, indicating that it has framed a Scheme, namely, Gyan Jyoti Scheme to extend the financial assistance to the students of merit for higher studies in India or abroad. It is submitted that under the said scheme assistance is to be extended to needy and deserving students. The criteria for select ion is the academic performances of students, income of their family and the scope for securing gainful employment after the completion of the courses. It has been put forth that, father of the petitioner is working as a Security Guard in the Balaghat Branch of State Bank of India. A reference has been made to the Scheme in question to highlight that the aggregate deduction inclusive of the payment of loan in case of children/wards of Bank staff would not exceed 50% of the gross salary. It is set forth in the counter affidavit that deduction from the salary of the father of the petitioner is 57.78% without taking into consideration the loan applied by the petitioner. Gross salary of the father of the petitioner is Rs. 8,055.00 per month and monthly deduction is amounting to Rs. 4,308.70. In addition to the aforesaid it is also pleaded that the father of the petitioner is returned to make regular periodical remittance to cover the interest portion and, therefore, the loan was not considered. It is also highlighted that the deductions from the salary of the father of the petitioner shall exceed his gross salary. It is also set forth that father of the petitioner is due for his retirement in the month of September. 2003, i.e. before commencing of the repayment of the loan and the petitioner was accordingly advised. It is put forth that the application for loan of the petitioner's father was rejected on the ground that total deductions made from his salary is more than 50% and under the Scheme the father of the petitioner would be required to make repayment of interest component which may exceed the gross salary as admissible to the father of the petitioner. It is also stated that the claim of annual agricultural income of the petitioner is Rs. 10,000.00 was not substantiated by the positive evidence. It is also clarified that the petitioner again made an application to the Bank on 15.9.1999 which was also rejected by the Bank. A reference has been made to the Circular dated 9.8.1993, Annexure R-6 to highlight the aggregate deductions inclusive of repayment of loan should not exceed 50% of the gross salary. But in the case at hand, taking into consideration the deductions already being made from the salary of the father of the petitioner and his date of retirement in the month of Sept., 2003, the application of the petitioner for grant of loan has been rejected. Under the Gyan Jyoti Scheme it is also highlighted that repayment of the interest component in the second year of the loan itself the total deductions would be 61.08% and after retirement of the father of the petitioner it will not be possible for the Bank to recover the principal and the interest, as the pension payable to the father of the petitioner will be further less than the salary that he is getting down. With these averments, it has been prayed that the petitioner's prayer has no merit.