JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. This common order shall decide the above detailed six cases because these cases involve similar law points and facts. We would take the facts of the case from revision petition No.638 of 2014. 2. Regional Institute of Co-operative Management, Chandigarh, the petitioner in this case, made a notification through advertisements, etc., and assured about its outstanding reputation as per publicity brochure, etc. It assured 100% job placement guarantee. Its prospectus mentioned for the batch 2010-12 that the Post Graduate Diploma in Management which would provide was equivalent to Masters of Business Administration (MBA) and recognised by the Association of Indian Universities. It was also represented that it was funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. 3. Placing reliance on these representations, all the six complainants, took admission in its two yearsfull-time Post Graduate Diploma in Management (Agriculture Business), for the year 2010-12 batch. The Opposite Party (OP) also contested that it was having healthy relations with Vaikunth Mehta National Institute of Co-operative Management, Pune University and considered it as its parent institute. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.4,53,500/- as per the payment schedule. The complainants completed the aforesaid Post Graduate Diploma in Management (Agriculture Business). They were issued certificates which reflected that those certificates were recognised by the All India Council for Technical Education, Ministry of Human Resources & Development, Government of India. However, it was not mentioned that the said Diploma was recognised by the Association of Indian Universities as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration Degree, meaning thereby that it was only a Post Graduate Diploma in Management. It also did not show that it was equivalent to Masters of Business Administration Degree. Consequently, the complainants could not get enrolled themselves for Ph.D course as according to the UGC norms, it allowed admission only if the Diploma course was certified by the Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration Degree. The Teachers were not employed as promised. 4. Consequently, complaints were filed with the prayer to refund the amount of Rs.4,53,500/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. and compensation in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- mental agony and physical harassment, punitive damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. 5. The OP contested all these cases. It listed the following defences. The case was barred by time. The students were informed at the beginning of the Session, vide a notice, placed on the Notice Board that the Association of Indian Universities had not recognised the Diploma in question equivalent to Masters of Business Administration Degree. However, the students continued their studies without demur. The case was bad for necessary parties. It is admitted that due to inadvertence it was mentioned in prospectus that the Diploma in question was recognised by the Association of Indian Universities as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration Degree. It is explained that the OP had already applied to the Association of Indian Universities for grant of recognition to the Diploma in question as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration Degree which was expected at any time. it is Denied that any assurance was given to the complainants. 6. The complainants filed complaints before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaints and compensation in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. was also granted. 7. Aggrieved by that order, the complainant filed a First Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission placed reliance on various authorities reported in Aashirwad Health and Education Trust & Anr. Vs. S.L.M. Ahmed & Ors., 2013 (2) CPC, 323, Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, 2013 (4) CPR 394 (SC), wherein it was held that the complainant did not fall within the definition of onsumer The State Commission explained that the facts of this case are different. The State Commission also placed reliance on Buddhist Mission Dental College and Hospital Vs. Bhupesh Khurana & Ors, I (2009) CPJ 25 (SC) and allowed the appeal partly. 8. We have also heard the counsel for the petitioner/OP. He has cited few authorities. He has cited an authority reported in Controller, Vinayak Mission Den. Col. Vs. Geetika Khare, III (2010) CPJ 26 (SC), wherein it was held that education refund of fee with interest and compensation for loss of academic year and mental harassment, - there was deficiency in service and the OP was liable to pay the compensation. He has also invited our attention towards Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, (2010) 11 SCC 159, wherein it was specifically held that the statutory function involves holding periodical examinations, evaluating the answer scripts, declaring the results and issuing certificates. In para No. 13, the Honle Apex Court in Maharshi Dayanand University (supra) held that as decided in Bihar School Examination Board (Supra) it clearly lays down the law in this regard, with which we find ourselves in full agreement with it. 9. We have perused the Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, (2009) 8 SCC 483, wherein it was held that statutory Board does not provide any service in the sense, the term is used in the Act and examinee is not a consumer. It was held that Board is not a service provider. In para 11 of the said judgment, it was held as under :- he Board is a statutory authority established under the Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952. The function of the Board is to conduct school examinations. This statutory function involves holding periodical examinations, evaluating the answer scripts, declaring the results and issuing certificates. The process of holding examinations, evaluating answer scripts, declaring results and issuing certificates are different stages of a single statutory non-commercial function. It is not possible to divide this function as partly statutory and partly administrative 10. The learned counsel for petitioner has also referred to the judgment of Honle Apex Court titled P.T.Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., in Civil Appeal No. 22532/2012, decided on 09.08.2012, wherein it was held as under :- n view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159 = 2010 (2) CPC 696 SC, wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in the matter of admission, fees, etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the special leave petition. Thus, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed 11. Thus, it is clear that the case rather supports the OP. In both the judgments, mentioned above, the same view was taken. 12. He has also cited few old authorities of this Commission, as well. 13. In a recent judgment in Civil Appeal No. 697 of 2014, titled Indian Institute of Bank & Finance (IIBF) Vs. Mukul Srivastava, dated 17.01.2014, passed by the Honle Apex Court, the Honle Apex Court has also referred to the judgments reported in Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, 2009 (8) SCC 483, Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159 and Jagmitter Sain Bhagat Vs. Director, Health Services Haryana & Ors, 2013 (!0) SCC 136, holding that the student, under such circumstances, is not a onsumer 14. The whole gamut of all facts and circumstances proved on record leans on the side of petitioner/OP. We, therefore, accept the revision petitions and set aside the orders passed by the fora below. However, the complainants shall have liberty to seek their grievances before the proper forum or civil court, as per law. They can seek help for condonation of delay in accordance with law laid down in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute 1995(3)SCC 583.