JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER(ORAL) 1. The affidavit filed by the petitioner along with newspaper cuttings shows that the respondent in Revision Petition No.3630 of 2009 has been duly served by publication. The notice has already been served upon the respondent in Revision Petition No.3629 of 2009. Since no one is present for the respondent despite service, we proceed to hear the petitioner on merits. The respondent/complainant in Revision Petition No.3629 of 2009 appeared in the Matriculation examination conducted by the Board of School Education, Haryana as a private candidate, in April 2003. She was placed in compartment in one paper. She took admission in a school and cleared 10+1 from the said school in March 2004. Simultaneously, she also appeared in and cleared the paper in which she was placed in compartment. She submitted the examination form for appearing in 10+2 examination of the petitioner and sent her application form along with requisite fee. Her candidature, however, was not accepted by the Board on the ground that she did not have gap of two years between clearing 10th examination and appearing in 10+2 examination. Being aggrieved from the view taken by the petitioner, she approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint. 2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner board primarily on the ground that as per the rules the complainant was not permitted to appear in 10+2 examination, unless there was a gap of two years between her passing the Matriculation examination and appearing in 10+2 examination. The District Forum vide its order dated 16-11-2005 allowed the complaint. Being aggrieved from the decision of the District Forum the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner is before us by way of this revision petition. Since there was a delay of 116 days in filing the appeal against the order of the District Forum an application seeking condonation of the said delay was filed along with the appeal. However, the State Commission dismissed the aforesaid application besides dismissing the appeal on merits. 3. The complainant in Revision Petition No.3630 of 2009 appeared in the Senior Secondary Examination conducted by the petitioner board in the Session 2002-03. When the results were declared she was shown absent in Hindi paper. His parents took up the matter with the petitioner board but no positive result could be achieved. Being aggrieved they approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner board inter alia on the ground that it was not maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. On merits it was alleged that the complainant had never appeared in Hindi paper and, therefore, there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner. 4. The District Forum having decided in favour of the complainant, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The plea taken by the complainant that a consumer complaint in the matter was not maintainable was rejected by the State Commission, referring to the decision of this Commission dated 31-05-2001 in FA No.643 of 1994. On merits the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Being aggrieved from the dismissal of this appeal the petitioner is before us by way of this revision petition. 5. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the petitioner and the complainant and since the complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a complaint before the District Forum was not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner board refers to the decision of this Commission in Haryana School Education Board Vs. Manga Ram in Revision Petition No.47 of 2010, in support of his contention. In the aforesaid case the complainant was aggrieved on account of the roll no. having not been issued to him despite his having been filled up the requisite form and the said form having been received by the board. He, therefore, approached the consumer forum by way of a complaint. The District Forum as well as the State Commission having decided in favour of the complainant the matter was agitated before this Commission. Relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, 2009(8) SCC 483, it was held that a student taking examination was not a consumer and, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable. 6. A perusal of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bihar School Examination Board (supra) would show that the Apex Court, while deciding the appeal before it inter alia observed and held as under: “13. The object of the Act is to cover in its net, services offered or rendered for a consideration. Any service rendered for a consideration is resumed to be a commercial activity in its broadest sense (including professional activity or quasi-commercial activity). But the Act does not intended 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 ‘service provider’ and a student who takes an examination is not a ‘consumer’ and consequently, complaint under the Act will not be maintainable against the Board.” 7. In view of the above referred binding decision of the Apex Court, there can be no denial that as far as conducting of the examination is concerned, the petitioner board cannot be said to be a service provider to the candidates appearing in the examination and the student appearing in such examination cannot be said to be a consumer of the board which holds such examinations. In view of the above referred decision, the view taken by the State Commission cannot be sustained on merits. 8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we allow both the revision petitions, condone the delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission in Revision Petition No.3629 of 2009 and dismiss both the complaints. There shall be no order as to costs. | 
