ORDER Hon’ble Irshad Hussain, President : Revisionists, who are the opposite parties in consumer complaint No. 205/2005, challenges the legality and jurisdictional propriety of the order dated 23.04.2007 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the preliminary objection that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, was rejected. 2. The complainant was filed against the University alleging deficiency in service on account of the University not sending admission form and prospectus to the complainant to facilitate his admission in M.Sc. (Biotechnology) course for the academic session 2004-2005 despite the complainant having remitted advertised fee of Rs. 775/- by bank draft to the University and for that reason, the complainant was not able to take admission in the said session and wasted one of his valuable year of academic career. Complainant, therefore, claimed compensation and damages from the University. 3. University raised preliminary objection that the complaint was not maintainable as the educational institutions do not provide any ‘service’ as defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and sought the dismissal of the complaint without adjudicating the dispute raised on merit. 4. The District Forum rejected the contention of the University by observing that the term ‘service’ as defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act extend to educational service also in view of the fact that the term is not limited to the facilities enumerated in the definition of the term being very wide, do not as all exclude the educational service in all its manifestations. Reliance was also placed on a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Controller of Examination, Himachal Pradesh University vs. Sanjay Kumar, 1 (2003) CPJ 273 (NC). Opposite parties felt dissatisfied by the order and filed this Revision Petition. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions in the light of the facts, circumstances and legal aspects of the case. Learned counsel for the revisionists persuasively argued that the order of the District Forum is bad in law in view of the various decisions of the Allahabad High Court and that of High Court of Judicature at Calcutta. Learned counsel for the revisionists persuasively argued that the order of the District Forum is bad in law in view of the various decisions of the Allahabad High Court and that of High Court of Judicature at Calcutta. Learned counsel also pressed into service the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Deputy Registrar (Colleges) and another vs. Ruchika Jain and others; III (2006) CPJ 343 (NC), to bring home his point of view that even otherwise the dispute raised by the complainant did not pertain to validity or illegality or any irregularity made by the University in giving the admission to the complainant and, as such, the dispute raised is not covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Having gone through the said decision of the Hon’ble National Commission, we see no merit in the submission of the learned counsel. The reason being that the order in the case of Ruchika Jain and others (supra) was passed after taking into consideration the mandate of various Supreme Court decisions and it was laid down that in the case of any shortcoming in the admission process or deficiency in the performance of service by any educational institution, redressal of such a dispute can be sought by the student under the provisions of the Act. It was also stressed that imparting of the education by the educational institutions, be it a school, college or university, after charging fee, falls within the ambit of ‘service’. There is no dispute that the complainant was eligible or has had essential qualification for seeking admission in M. Sc. (Biotechnology) in the academic sessions 2004-2005. Pursuant to the advertisement by the University, the complainant for the purpose of seeking admission in the said course, sent draft for sum of Rs.775/- to the University, receipt of which within time, was also not in dispute. The admission form and the prospectus was not received by the complainant in time for seeking the admission in the said course and since the complainant was a potential user of the educational service by applying for admission in the said course – the ‘service’ made available to the complainant under the above circumstances, fall in the definition of ‘service’ as envisaged by Section 2(1) (0) of the Act. Under these circumstances, we could not be able to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the University that it was not a dispute regarding validity or illegality or irregularity made by the University in giving admission, for the simple reason that the admission process was started and set into motion by the advertisement made by the University and in pursuance of which, the potential user of the educational service, applied for admission form and remitted required amount to get the admission form and prospectus which was, however, not supplied to him. 6. In view of above, we are of the firm view that there is no jurisdictional error or infirmity in the order of the District Forum, hence it is affirmed. The Revision Petition is dismissed. The University shall file its written statement in the consumer complaint before the District Forum within a month. No order as to cost.