M. KATJU, S. L. SARAF, JJ. ( 1 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 and its granted six weeks time to file counter affidavit. ( 2 ) ISSUE notice to respondent No. 2 returnable at an early date. ( 3 ) LIST in the second week of July, 1998. ( 4 ) THIS writ petition has been filed against the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressed Forum, jhansi, dated 20. 3. 1998 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) in which it has been held that holding of an examination is a service and hence, the matter is cognizable by the Consumer Forum. The respondent No. 2 was a student of B. Sc. III year at Vipin Bihari Degree College, Jhansi and he was declared failed in the examination of B. Sc III year. He filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhansi, the respondent No. 1, in which he prayed for summoning of the answer copy and declaration of his result. The petitioner filed a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the complaint which was rejected by the impugned order, and hence this petition. ( 5 ) THE impugned order refers to some order of the National Consumer Forum holding that the holding of examination, declaration or result etc. is a service, and hence the matter comes within the purview of the Consumer. Protection Act. We regret we cannot agree. We are pained to note that almost every kind of matter under the sky is being filed before the Consumer Forum whether it comes within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act or not, and all such complaints are being entertained. It may be pointed out that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has a limited scope which is limited to deciding complaints regarding goods sold or service rendered. ( 6 ) IN our opinion, the petitioner is neither selling any goods, nor rendering any service of the kind envisaged by Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act. It may be pointed out that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has a limited scope which is limited to deciding complaints regarding goods sold or service rendered. ( 6 ) IN our opinion, the petitioner is neither selling any goods, nor rendering any service of the kind envisaged by Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act. Section 2 (1) (o) states : "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, 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. " ( 7 ) IN Smt. N. Taneja v. Calcutta District Forum, AIR 1992 Cal. 95 , it was held by the Calcutta high Court that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not deal with the subject of education. We are prima facie in agreement with the view of the Calcutta High Court since we are of the opinion that the holding of examination and declaration of result is neither selling of Goods nor rendering a service of the kind contemplated by Section 2 (1) (o ). Hence prima facie, we are of the opinion that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction in the matter. We, therefore, stay the impugned order dated 20. 3. 1998 as well as further proceedings in Consumer complaint No. 390 of 1997 till further orders. .