JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. The relief which was sought by the appellant before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, which has culminated in an order of dismissal dated 7 October 2014, is that her result for the second year B.T.C. examination should be declared. 2. A counter affidavit was filed in the proceedings before the learned Single Judge by the Deputy Registrar in the office of the Examination Regulatory Authority in which it was specifically stated in paragraph 26 that in the examination, which was held on 1 February 2009, the appellant had secured less than 33% marks and was hence unsuccessful. Moreover, the learned Single Judge has noted that as many as 81 candidates had appeared in the examination of whom 80 were declared successful. Hence, no motive of bias could be attributed to the authorities to single out the appellant. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the result of the appellant should be declared. 4. In view of the statement which has been made on affidavit in the counter affidavit that the appellant had secured less than 33% marks, no further direction was required to be issued and the grievance of the appellant had been rendered academic. Hence, the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition does not warrant interference. The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.