Heard. 2. Respondent/ complainant herein, had filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioner/ opposite party no. 1 on the ground that after having taken the necessary fees, from the respondent for revaluating the marks for Urdu and Persian subjects, the re-evaluation of the aforesaid subjects had not been done. 3. District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which concurred with the findings of the District Forum. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 02.04.2007 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, petitioner has filed this present revision petition. 6. Notice on this revision petition was issued to the respondent. Respondent was duly served through Registered AD post. Since, there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent, he was proceeded ex parte, vide order dated 8th November 2011 passed by this Commission. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the records of the case as well as the three judgments i.e., (i) Bihar School Examination Board vs Suresh Prasad Sinha (2009) 8 SCC 483; (ii) Maharashi Dayanand University vs Surjeet Kaur (2010) 11 SCC 159; and (iii) University of Delhi vs Mohd A M Abel Karim and Anr - (RP no. 3128 of 2007) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. Supreme Court in Bihar School Examination Board (Supra) considered the question as to whether a candidate can file a complaint before the District Forum under the Act raising any grievance regarding his examinations conducted by the Bihar School Examinations Board constituted under the Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952 and answered it in negative observing as under: he object of the Act is to cover in its net, services offered or rendered for a consideration. Any service rendered for a consideration is presumed to be a commercial activity in its broadest sense (including professional activity or quasi-commercial activity). But the Act does not intend to cover discharge of a statutory function of examining whether a candidate is fit to be declared as having successfully completed a course by passing the examination. The fact that in the course of conduct of the examination, or evaluation of answer scripts, or furnishing of mark-sheets or certificates, there may be some negligence, omission or deficiency, does not convert the Board into a service provider for a consideration, nor convert the examinee into a consumer who can make a complaint under the Act. We are clearly of the view that the Board is not a ervice providerand a student who takes an examination is not a onsumerand consequently, complaint under the Act will not be maintainable against the Board (See also : Maharshi Dayanand University vs Surjeet Kaur - (2010) 11 SCC 159) 9. In view of the judgment of Bihar School Examination Board (supra) the complaint before the District Forum was not maintainable since the respondent is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 10. In view of the above, the orders of the Fora below are set aside and the complaint filed before the District Forum shall stand dismissed. However, respondent is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for appropriate relief. Accordingly, the revision petition stand disposed of.