By the impugned order State Commission has directed the Registrar, University of Pune to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to complainant Mohammed Abdul Hai for delay in announcing the result of M.Tech First Semester Backlog Examination. Aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, complainant has filed First Appeal No. 396 of 2007 seeking enhancement of compensation whereas University of Pune has filed First Appeal No. 497 of 2007 seeking quashing of the order. Since both the appeals are directed against the same order passed by the State Commission, we dispose of the appeals by a common order. Complainant had filed the complaint before the State Commission alleging delay in declaring the result and interpolation of marks, which resulted in his losing excellent job opportunities to go abroad. State Commission allowed the complaint in part and directed the University to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- by way of compensation. We need not go into the other details as the point in issue is squarely concluded by a judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha [(2009) 8 SCC 483], in which they have held that declaration of results and holding of examinations is a statutory duty of University and, therefore, the University does not offer its ervicesto any student in the discharge of statutory function. No complaint is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the University for any deficiency in declaring the results and related matters. In view of the above, counsel for the parties agree that the point in issue is concluded by the aforesaid judgment and the complaint filed by the complainant against the University is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In view of the fact that complaint is not maintainable, First Appeal No.396 of 2007 filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of compensation is dismissed and First Appeal No. 497 of 2007 filed by the University of Pune is allowed. Order of the State Commission is set aside and the complaint is ordered to be dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved with the complainant to seek redressal of his grievance in any other competent court having jurisdiction. No costs.