Judgment :- Srinivasan, J. The second respondent was working as a Selection Grade Lecturer in the English Department of C. Kandaswami Naidu College for Women, the principal of which is the petitioner herein. She filed O.P. No.238 of 1994 against the petitioner and the third respondent viz.. the Pachayappa’s Trust claiming a sum of Rs.55,000 towards damages and interest loss for the delayed settlement of her superannuation benefits. Neither the Government nor the Director of Collegiate Education are parties to the said petition. The second respondent retired from service on 35. 1991. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the first respondent forum to decide the claim made by the second respondent before it. The prayer in the writ petition is for issue of a writ in the nature of prohibition, prohibiting the first respondent from proceeding with the trial of O.P. No.238 of 1994 filed by the second respondent herein. 2. The short submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the disputes between employer and employee are not covered by the Consumer Protection Act and they cannot be agitated before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Secondly, it is submitted that even according to the affidavit filed by the second respondent before the forum, the contract of employment between her and the college had already ended and the amount due to her is payable by the Government and not by the college. It is expressly stated in paragraph 6 of her affidavit that the case cannot be treated as a case of employee against employer for non-payment of dues and in this case pension P.F. etc., are not payable by the employer. However, it is urged in paragraph 7 of the said affidavit that it is the statutory and quasi contractual obligation on the part of the Principal of the College to forward the papers on time to the Government and in view of the delay caused by the Principal, she is put to loss and damage, which according to her, she is entitled to claim before the forum. Yet another contention raised by learned counsel is that educational institutions are outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. 3. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Smt.J. Teneja and another v. Calcutta District Forum and others, A.I.R. 1992 Cal. Yet another contention raised by learned counsel is that educational institutions are outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. 3. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Smt.J. Teneja and another v. Calcutta District Forum and others, A.I.R. 1992 Cal. 95 and a judgment of ours in The Registrar, University of Madras v. Union of India, W.P. No. 1700 of 1992 etc., batch dated 112. 1994. We have expressed the opinion in that judgment that educational institutions and universities do not fall within the purview of the said Act. In paragraph 55 of our judgment we have stated that we have no doubt in holding that the Act is not applicable to institutions which impart education and universities. In paragraph 66 we have referred to the above judgment of the Calcutta High Court and agreed with the reasoning contained therein. Thus, in so far as this Court is concerned, the ruling as at present stands is that educational institutions are outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. 4. The second respondent has appeared in person and submitted her arguments. She referred to the order passed at the interlocutory stage by a learned single Judge in W.M.P. No.9898 of 1994. The learned Judge was not inclined to grant absolute stay as prayed for by the petitioner but permitted the trial of the complaint before the Consumer Court to go on and observed that, however, if any final order is passed it shall not be implemented without the permission of the court. It is also observed by (he learned Judge that it is open to the forum to take up any issue as preliminary issue and decide the same before going into the merits of the case. The second respondent contends that the intention of the learned single Judge in passing the said order is that the merits of the case should be gone into by the Consumer Forum and justice must be rendered. It is further argued by her that the matter cannot go before any Labour Court as the relationship between her and the petitioner cannot be brought within the scope of the jurisdiction of Labour Court. It is submitted by her that the State Administrative Tribunal cannot deal with the dispute in view of the fact that she is not a Government servant. It is submitted by her that the State Administrative Tribunal cannot deal with the dispute in view of the fact that she is not a Government servant. It is her argument that there is no other forum which can consider her grievance and it is only the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum which can render justice in her case. It is further submitted that the National Commission for Consumer Disputes has taken the view that educational institutions will fall within the scope of the Act and disputes have to be decided only by the Consumer Redressal Forum. According to her, the only higher authority is the Supreme Court and the decision of the National Commission is binding on the subordinate forums. It is, therefore contended by her that the present dispute must also go only before the Consumer Forum and it cannot by prevented by this Court. It is submitted by her that it is not a dispute between student and teacher and student and educational institution and therefore the judgment rendered by us earlier will not apply. She has also argued that the petitioner has not come to court with clean hands and it is not entitled to any relief under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Sec.2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, defines ‘service’ in the following terms: "Service" means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both (housing construction) entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service." The section expressly excludes a contract of personal service from the definition. Hence, it goes without saying that the second respondent who was under a contract of service with the petitioner cannot raise a dispute before Forum under the provisions of the Act as contract of personal service is excluded from the scope of the Act. 6. Apart from that, the reasoning contained in our judgment in W.P. No. 1700 of 1992 referred to above that educational institutions and universities are outside the jurisdiction of the Forum will also apply. 7. 6. Apart from that, the reasoning contained in our judgment in W.P. No. 1700 of 1992 referred to above that educational institutions and universities are outside the jurisdiction of the Forum will also apply. 7. The Supreme Court had held in Indian Oil Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council, Kerala and another, (1994)1 S.C.C. 397 , that if there is no privity of contract between the parties, there can be no ‘deficiency’ in service as contemplated in Sec.2(g) of the Act and therefore, an action is not enforceable before the Consumer Forum. In this case, no doubt there was a contract of service between the second respondent and the third respondent but the payment of salary and all other benefits has to be made by the Government. No amount is payable by the petitioner as such. Hence, the dispute cannot go before the Consumer Forum. 8. If the second respondent has got any grievance it may be a matter for moving the appropriate civil court against the appropriate party, but it is certainly not a ‘consumer dispute’ to be taken up before the first respondent herein. 9. In the circumstances, we agree with the contentions urged by learned counsel for the petitioner and allow the writ petition. A writ all issue prohibiting the first respondent from proceeding further with O.P. No.238 of 1994 on its file. There will be no order as to costs.