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.;