JUDGMENT Vijay Kumar Shukla, J. - In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to declare the process of selection, cancellation of questions and declaring the petitioners disqualified in the Eligibility Test 2018, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners have further prayed that the respondents be directed to qualify the petitioners in the selection and appointment on the post of Middle School Teacher giving relaxation and experience marks. 2. The learned counsel for the State urged that the present petition is covered by order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.20290/2019 (Pusphendra Burman and others vs. State of M.P. and others) and other connected writ petitions whereby the writ petitions have been dismissed. 3. The petitioners in this petition having failed to qualify in the High School/Higher Secondary Schools Teachers Eligibility Test, 2018 in the subjects of Economics, Mathematics, Chemistry, Social Science and Sanskrit, have challenged the cancellation of question papers and sought for a direction to the respondents, to apply the Rules called, Madhya Pradesh Rajya School Shiksha Seva (Shaikshnik Samvarg) Seva Sharten Evam Bharti Niyam, 2018 [hereinafter referred to as "the Rules 2018"] and to award marks for cancelled question and prepare a final list afresh. In the petition formula contained in Clause 2.9.A of the Examination Rules has also been questioned. 4. The facts, briefly stated are that the petitioners appeared in the Eligibility Test, 2018 held for different subjects. The Examination was conducted in three shifts in some subjects. After declaration of the results the candidates raised grievances that some questions were incorrect as per the answer key prepared by the respondent - Professional Examination Board and some questions were out of syllabus. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for award of additional marks. It is also contended that the formula adopted by the Professional Examination Board is defective and arbitrary. 5. The learned counsel representing the Professional Examination Board in the said batch of writ petitions stated that there is no defect in the process of normalisation. They have adopted a proper procedure and protocol with regard to answer-key and after uploading the Model Answer-sheets, they have given 7 days time to raise objections and after receiving the objections/submissions the expert body has examined the same. They have adopted a proper procedure and protocol with regard to answer-key and after uploading the Model Answer-sheets, they have given 7 days time to raise objections and after receiving the objections/submissions the expert body has examined the same. He further argued that the validity of formula has already been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vivek Jain vs. The Professional Examination Board, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal and others, (1994) AIR M.P. 164 and by the Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2013) 14 SCC 494 . He further urged that similar petitions in respect of posts in the subjects of Economics, Mathematics, Social Science and Chemistry have already been dismissed. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and bestowed our anxious consideration on the issues involved in the writ petitions. 7. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already dismissed similar writ petitions viz. W.P. No.23296/2019 (Amit Nigam vs. State of M.P. and others; W.P. No.23669/2019 (Pushpraj Singh Raghuvanshi vs. State of M.P. and others); W.P. No.20197/2019 (Arun Kumar Shukla vs. State of M.P. and others); and W.P. No.22643/2019 (Dashrath Patel vs. State of M.P. and others) in respect of the posts in the subjects of Economics, Social Science, Mathematics and Chemistry respectively, after referring to Formula in clause 2.9.A of the Examination Rules. The relevant part of the order passed in the case of Amit Nigam (supra) is reproduced : "It is seen from record that clause 2.9 v of the examination Rules (filed as Annxure P/6) empowers the examining body to cancel the questions in case of the eventualities therein. The said clause stipulates: In the case at hand also as 32 questions in Economics were found to be either out of course, mistake of translation (the examination being in bilingual) and wrong options it was within the competence of the Professional Examination Board to cancel the same and rationalize the total marks as per example No.2 of Clause 2.9." 8. The validity of the formula has already been examined by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vivek Jain (supra). Para 16 of the judgment being relevant is extracted hereunder : "16. The validity of the formula has already been examined by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vivek Jain (supra). Para 16 of the judgment being relevant is extracted hereunder : "16. With respect to a cancelled question, the rule of the Board in 2.3, already quoted in a preceding paragraph, is that candidates are given proportionate marks for that question in relation to the marks earned by the candidate in that paper, irrespective of whether that question was or was not attempted by him. The rationale behind this course is quite discernible. It is deemed as if the cancelled question was not included in the paper. For example, if 5 questions out of 100 questions in a paper, say of Physics, are cancelled, it is deemed as if that paper consisted of only 95 questions. Then, the marks obtained by the candidate in relation to 95 questions are only considered. Supposing a candidate had scored 220 marks in relation to 95 questions, his score is 220/95. This score is then converted into 100 questions. That score would then come to Converted into round figure 220/95x100/1 = 231.57. Converted into round figure it will be 232 marks. This score of 232 marks is proportionate marks in relation to the marks earned by the candidate in the paper. The contention put forward by learned counsel for the petitioners that even with respect to a cancelled question a candidate should be awarded full marks for the marking done by him, is unreasonable and cannot be accepted. Proportionate marks are properly awarded by the Board with respect to such questions and with respect to question cancelled by the Court, it is proper to direct award of proportionate marks as was also directed by the Division Bench of this Court in Rekha Sanghi's case (supra). 9. Apart from that, the Apex Court has also examined the formula in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh and others (supra) and in para 16 of the judgment ruled thus : "16. It is not in dispute nor it can be disputed that for the purposes of re-evaluation, the eight questions found incorrect were deleted and their marks were rightly allotted on a pro-rata basis in accordance with Clause 14 of the Rules which reads as under: "Clause 14. Wrong (Defective) objective type question, its cancellation and marks to be allotted in lieu of it. Wrong (Defective) objective type question, its cancellation and marks to be allotted in lieu of it. After the exams, the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (VYAPAM) gets each question examined by the subject expert. If, upon examination by the subject experts, the questions are found defective/ wrong, it is rejected. Questions may be rejected on the following reasons: (i) if the structure of the question is wrong; (ii) out of the options given as answers, if more than one options are correct. (iii) If no option is correct. (iv) If there is difference in Hindi and English translation of any question because of which different meaning is drawn from both and one correct answer could not be ascertained. (v) If any other printing mistake is there because of which correct answer is not ascertainable or more than one option is correct. On such rejection of question upon the recommendation of Subject Expert Committee, on such questions the marks would be awarded by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (VYAPAM) to the candidates in proportion to their marks obtained in the particular question paper. Whether the rejected question has been or not been attempted. The question papers in which the questions have been rejected, their evaluation procedure would be as follows, if in any question papers out of 100 questions two questions are rejected and after evaluation candidate secures 81 marks out of 98 questions then in such case calculation of marks would be done as (81x100)/100-2= 82.65. On which basis merit would be determined. " The other eight questions whose answers were found incorrect in the earlier model answers key were re-evaluated on the basis of revised model answers key. In Paper I, only the objective type questions were re-evaluated with the aid of model answers key prepared and provided to the examiners for the first time after the inquiry by the respondent-Board." 10. In view of the aforesaid, since all the issues canvassed before us, have already been examined by the Co-ordinate Bench and the Supreme Court as well, we do not perceive any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.