Judgment :- Sreedharan, J. These three Original Petitions have come before us on a reference made by a learned Single Judge. Petitioner in these Original Petitions is the Mahatma Gandhi University. Students, who appeared in the examinations held by the University, have approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum alleging deficiency in service rendered by the University. The Forum issued notices to the University and its officers on those petitions. On receipt of that notice, University has approached this Court by filing these Original Petitions, challenging the competence of the Forum to entertain the petitions filed by the students. 2. From the averments in O.P. 4631/1991, we sec the circumstances under which the student approached uk Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The student appeared for the Final year LL.B. Degree Lumination (5 year course) in 1989. The result of that examination was published in January, 1990. As per the result, he failed in two out of six papers, namely in Law of Criminal Procedure and Legal Drafting and Convincing. The total -marks secured by him in the final year examination was assessed as 284 marks, while the marks requiem's for the pass is 300. The student then applied for revaluation of the two papers remitting the requisite fee. Since there was delay in knowing the result of the revaluation, he took the Supplementary examination held in may, 1990. Its result was published on 13-8-1990. He passed in the two papers, provisional Degree Certificate was issued by the University on 19-9-1990, and he got enrolled as an advocate. On 23-10-1990, lie was informed by the university that on revaluation of his papers he has secured 26 more marks in the two papers, namely Law of Criminal Procedure and legal Drafting and Conveyancing. Therefore, the student urged that there was no proper valuation of his paper written in the examination held in October, 1989 and that there was laches and negligence in delaying the re-valuation. On account of this deficiency in service, he has claimed a sum of Rs. 95,900/- as compensation from the University. Similar claims have been put forth by the students who approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, which have given rise to O.P. 5037/1991 and O.P. 5140/1991. 3. On account of this deficiency in service, he has claimed a sum of Rs. 95,900/- as compensation from the University. Similar claims have been put forth by the students who approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, which have given rise to O.P. 5037/1991 and O.P. 5140/1991. 3. In O.P. 4847/1991 and connected matters, the Central Board of Secondary Education contended that its activities are outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1956 and that the proceedings before the Forum initiated by the students, who took the examinations conducted by it, are to be quashed. By the common judgment rendered by us on 6-10-1993, we declined jurisdiction. In arriving at that conclusion, we took note of the decision rendered by the Kerala State Commission holding that the Kerala University is rendering services to the students and complaints filed by them against the University are maintainable under the Act. ManisliaSainal v. Sambalpw University, (1992) 1 CPR 2J5, the National Commission held that negligence committed by the University in the conduct of examination will amount to deficiency in service coming under the Act. It was observed by us in the common judgment rendered on 6-10-1993: - "We cannot go into the correctness of this view (the view expressed by the National Commission). Any opinion, of ours will amount to exercising appellate jurisdiction on the decision of the National Commission in Manisha Samal's case. Such a power is conferred only on the Supreme court under the Act". 4. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides for sufficient safeguards to the parties before the' Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission. Aggrieved party has got a right of appeal to the Supreme Court. 5. In O.P. 2929/1993 =1993 (2) KLT 755 which was disposed of by us on 10-3-1993, we observed: - "Coming to the facts of this case, whereof the view that the question of jurisdiction raised , in this case can very well be decided by the District Forum. The case is not one where the express provisions of the Act exclude entertaining such a complaint. Nor is the case one which can be treated as a rare case in which this court should intervene. We therefore consider it not necessary to entertain the question of jurisdiction raised before us in this writ petition". This observation applies on all fours to the facts in these cases. Nor is the case one which can be treated as a rare case in which this court should intervene. We therefore consider it not necessary to entertain the question of jurisdiction raised before us in this writ petition". This observation applies on all fours to the facts in these cases. Consequently, we decline to interfere with the proceedings pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Original Petitions fail. They are accordingly dismissed.