Yashwant Varma, J.

1. This special appeal along with connected matters has, with the consent of parties, been taken up for disposal together since the issues raised are common and identical.

2. The principal question which arises for determination is the claim of "Shiksha Mitras" [the appellant and writ petitioners in this batch of matters] to a weightage of 2.5% marks in the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination. It is the contention of Shiksha Mitras that this weightage is liable to be accorded to them at the stage of computation of marks obtained in the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination. The learned Single Judge in this appeal has held that this claim is untenable since the second proviso to Rule 14(3)(a) cannot be read as providing for a weightage being added to the marks obtained in the aforesaid examination. The learned Judge has further held that the second proviso to Rule 14 (3) (a) cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to modify the substantive rule.

3. Since a large number of appeals and writ petitions stood tagged with this leading appeal, we had invited all learned counsels to address submissions. The submissions on behalf of "Shiksha Mitras" was led by Sri R.K. Ojha, the learned Senior Counsel appearing in the leading Special Appeal. Although Sri Ashok Khare, the learned Senior Counsel initially appeared in Special Appeal No. 594 of 2018, at the time when the said appeal was called he did not appear. The counsel on record of Special Appeal No. 594 of 2018 was also invited to address submissions. However, all learned counsels including the counsel on record of Special Appeal No. 594 of 2018 submitted in unison that they were adopting the submissions advanced by Sri R.K. Ojha, the learned Senior Counsel. We may also record at this stage that although no counter affidavits had been filed in the writ petitions or the special appeals, the learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri A.K. Yadav appearing for the Basic Education Officer submitted that no counter affidavit need be filed since the issue raised was purely legal in character. It is in the above backdrop that we proceeded to hear learned counsels for parties on merits.

4. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to take a step back and briefly recapitulate the origins of the engagement of Shiksha Mitras as well as the various steps taken by the Department of Basic Education in connection with their recruitment and absorption in the regular cadre of Assistant Teachers employed in Basic Schools in the State of U.P.

5. The claim with respect to the continuance of Shiksha Mitras and the avowed objective of the State of U.P. to absorb them in the regular cadre of Assistant Teachers was considered in great detail and authoritatively declared by a Full Bench of this Court in Anand Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors, (2015) 6 ALJ 433 [F.B.]. The Full Bench noticed not only the legislative backdrop but also traced the history relating to the engagement of Shiksha Mitras in great detail. It ultimately found that the engagement of Shiksha Mitras was not in the regular service of the State since they had not been appointed in accordance with the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules 1981 (1981 Rules). It found that their engagement was purely on a contractual basis for a stipulated term of eleven months renewable subject to satisfactory performance and on payment of an honorarium. It also found that their appointments were not against sanctioned posts as determined by the Board of Basic Education under the 1981 Rules. It was also noted that the Shiksha Mitra did not fulfill the qualifications for a regular teacher under the 1981 Rules. The Full Bench thereafter proceeded to evaluate the right of Shiksha Mitras to continue in service in light of the provisions of the Right Of Children To Free And Compulsory Education Act 2009 (2009