In this revision filed by the opposite party, challenge is to the order dated 17.11.2008 of the State Commission, Delhi whereby appeal filed by NIOS against the order dated 7.4.2008 of a District Forum was dismissed.   District Forum had directed the petitioner to announce the result of respondent and to pay meager amount of compensation for harassment. 

          Only few facts need be noticed for deciding this case.  Respondent had passed 10^th class from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad.  He was admitted for Sr. Secondary Course by the petitioner for the academic session 2005-06.  Respondent was also permitted to appear in the examination.  However, result was not declared by the petitioner.  Respondent, therefore, filed complaint against the petitioner which was contested by replying that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabd is not a recognized Board and therefore respondent was ineligible for being admitted in Sr. Secondary Course of the petitioner and his result was, therefore, not declared by the petitioner.  In support of this defense, reliance was placed on the letter of petitioner written on 29.3.2006 sent to the Coordinator of Accredited Institute (AI) (copy at page 30).  Having heard Shri Reetesh Singh and Shri Devvrat and also having considered the fact that he was not eligible for being admitted in Sr. Secondary Course examination and still he was permitted to appear in Sr. Secondary examination, we are of the view that it would be unfair to withhold the result of the respondent on the said ground by the petitioner.  We do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders of the fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.  Petitioner will declare result of the respondent within two weeks.  This case will not be treated as a precedent in other cases.  Dasti.