WP(C) 3034/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. P. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rajkhowa , learned standing counsel Education Department appearing for the respondent Nos .1 and 2 as well as Mr. Das, learned standing counsel BTC appearing for the resp ondent Nos.3 to 8. The petitioner, 8(eight) in numbers, by the present petition have prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to pay the stipend of Rs.1,800/- per month pursuant to the appointments as stipendiary teacher issued in the mont h of March, 2001 by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Nalbari. According to the p etitioners though since the date of their appointment till date the petitioners served as stipendiary teachers, they have not been paid the stipend of Rs.1,800/ - per month. The respondent Nos.3 to 8 in their affidavit-in-opposition has stated th at the orders of appointments issued by the concerned Deputy Inspector of School s, Nalbari were cancelled vide order dated 17.07.2001, which was put to challeng e by some of the persons in WP(C) No.6262/2001, which writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent authorities to institute an enquiry to find out whe ther the appointments were made after following the due process of law and to pa ss necessary order either ratifying or approving the termination orders issued, including the orders issued appointing the petitioners and accordingly an enquir y was conducted and the Principal Secretary upon consideration of the report vid e order dated 03.08.2002 approved the termination orders terminating the service s of the petitioners and other similarly placed persons. It is the contention of the respondents in the affidavit that since the petitioners were appointed agai nst the non-existent posts illegally, they are not entitled to the salary, more so when their appointments were terminated away back on 17.07.2001, which was ap proved by the Principal Secretary by subsequent order dated 03.08.2002. It appears from the materials made available that the order dated 03.08. 2002 passed by the Principal Secretary was again put to challenge in WP(C) No.45 60/2008 challenging the order of termination from service by similarly placed pe rsons with that of the petitioners, which writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 21.11.2008. That apart, the petitioners have not challenged the initial o rder dated 17.07.2001 and the subsequent order passed by the Principal Secretary on 03.08.2002, whereby and whereunder the petitioners’ services have been termi nated on the ground that they were appointed illegally. That being the position, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief as claimed in the writ petition and hence the same is dismissed. No costs.