ORDER 1. The present intra Court appeal is filed under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 being aggrieved by the order dated 2.3.2020 passed in W.P. No.21010/2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition for proper valuation of questions No.28 (Maths), 44(Maths) question No.3 (G.K.) and Question No.6 (General reasoning) of High School Teacher Eligibility Test 2018. 2. The appellant in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had sought for following direction :- "(i) to call the record of answer sheet of High School Teacher Test, 2018 relating to the petitioner Roll No.74475200. (ii) to correct the question No.28 (Maths), Question No.44 (Maths), Question No.3 (General Knowledge) and Question No.6 (General Reasoning) and give correct marks of the aforesaid question and thereafter issue fresh marksheet in favour of the petitioner." 3. To adjudge the suitability for appointing High School Teachers in different faculties, Professional Examination Board conducted High School Teacher Eligibility Test, 2018. The examination was held on 17.5.2019 wherein the appellant secured 73.35 marks and his consolidated position was 2217. The appellant was declared non-qualified. It is contended that on information sought, the appellant came to know that Questions No.28 and 44 of Maths, Question No.3 of General Knowledge and Question No.6 of General Reasoning were cancelled as they were either out of syllabus, wrong option or translation mistake. It is contended that since the appellant has attempted these questions, their cancellation caused grave prejudice. 4. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration "Clause 2.9 A" of the Examination Rules which empowers the Examining Body to cancel the questions in case of the eventualities therein and held that there was no illegality in the cancellation of questions. 5. The learned Single Judge did not find any illegality in the procedure adopted by the respondents and therefore, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed