JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. P. Sarmah, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, the learned standing counsel for the BTC (respondent Nos.3, 4 and 7). The learned standing counsel for the Department of Elementary Education Mr. A. Deka appears for the respondent No.2. The learned Govt. advocate Ms. K. Phukan represents the respondent Nos.1 and 6. 2. The petitioner No.1 is an association formed by the mother teachers appointed in the schools within the BTC (erstwhile BAC) areas and the 2nd petitioner Smt. Sabitri Boro, is the President of the association. 3. The petitioners seek release of their salary by challenging the order dated 12.11.2004 (Annexure-VIII), whereby, the BTC authorities had declared that they are not liable to pay the salaries of the mother teachers, since the Assam Government has not sanctioned any posts and the concerned persons were appointed against, non-existent/non-sanctioned posts. 4. The same association earlier filed the WP(C) No.864/2009 for release of their fixed remuneration by the BTC authorities. In that case it was projected by the BTC that the services of all mother teachers were terminated on 12.11.2004. Taking note of the termination order dated 12.11.2004, the learned Judge disposed of the WP(C) No.864/2009 filed by the association, with the following direction:- “…………………………. (i) The Director of Education, BTC shall verify the names of the mother teachers, who are members of the petitioners' association, and their dates of appointments, engagements and joining as well as their period of service up to the date of termination i.e. 12.11.2004. (ii) The persons, who are found to be engaged as mother teachers and members of the petitioners' association shall be paid their monthly remuneration for the period for which they are found to have rendered the service of mother teachers provided they are not paid the fixed remuneration for the said period. The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today to be produced by the petitioners or by any of its members before the Director of Education, BTC. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.” 5. The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today to be produced by the petitioners or by any of its members before the Director of Education, BTC. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.” 5. When the litigants failed to secure any relief in pursuant to the above direction in the WP(C) No.864/2009, they filed the Cont.Cas(C) No.10/2013 (disposed of on 21.03.2014), which led to the following speaking order of the Director of Education, BTC on 18.07.2016:- “……………….. Speaking Order Sub:- Arrear salary-rejection thereof. In continuation of this directorate order vide Memo No.DE/BTC/Genl-89/2011/732 dated Kokrajhar the 15th July/2016, after careful consideration of all aspects in the matter of the petitioners in the referred cases WP(C) 864/2009 filed by All BTAD School Mother Teachers’ Association, represented by its president Smt. Sabitri Boro, Contempt Case(C) No.10/2013 and group of the petitioners in the same association in WP(C) No.4461/2015, WP(C) No.4234/2015 and WP(C) No.4459/2015, this office had never received records of appointment letter, working certificate, incumbency list etc. received from the DDOs in connection with arrear salary in respect of the petitioners. Besides, the bonafides of these cases filed petitions after about 15(fifteen) years is also not free from doubt who claimed to be appointed as Mother teachers by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Block Elementary Education Officer of the concerned district against non-existent and non-sanctioned posts in the year 1997 at various L.P. Schools under the New Education Policy of the erstwhile B.A.C. Therefore, claim of the petitioners for arrear salary seems to be dubious misleading that redundant is also not reasonable and lack of sufficient cause as per rules. After considering the cases stated above, it is found that claim of arrear salary by the petitioners have not covered the Govt. rules and it is baseless and contrary to law as per provision provided in the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialised) Rules, 1977 (Amended in 2005) now NCTE under RTE Act, 2009. In view of the above instance, the claim of the petitioners for payment of arrear salary is hereby rejected on the ground of having no merit. ……………………………………….” 6. The learned counsel Mr. In view of the above instance, the claim of the petitioners for payment of arrear salary is hereby rejected on the ground of having no merit. ……………………………………….” 6. The learned counsel Mr. P. Sarmah submits that although the same association have filed the present case and also the earlier WP(C) No.864/2009, the disposal of the earlier case on 10.04.2012 will not disentitled the association to claim wages for the post termination period, as the Court’s earlier direction issued on 10.04.2012 related to the salary claim for the period prior to the termination order dated 12.11.2004. 7. On the other hand, Ms. B. Bhuyan, the learned standing counsel BTC submits that in the WP(C) No.864/2009, the learned Judge took into account the termination order of 12.11.2004 and then issued the direction for verification and payment of salary, to the deserving school mothers. Therefore she submits that the petitioners cannot apply for salary for the post termination period, through a separate writ petition. The BTC counsel further submits that after verification of the salary claim of the school mothers, the BTC authorities had identified the deserving persons and then disbursed the dues of those found eligible. 8. Representing the Education Department of Govt. of Assam, Mr. A. Deka, the learned standing counsel projects that for the school mothers engaged in different schools of Assam (outside the BTC area), the claim for regularisation and salary payment was rejected by this Court in Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Matri Santha Vs. State of Assam reported in 2014(3) GLT 1. He submits that since appointments were illegally made without posts being available, the salary claim of the school mothers, was rightly rejected by the Court. 9. The association which filed the WP(C) No.864/2009 (disposed of on 10.04.2012), are also the petitioners in the present case and the claim for release of salary in both cases, are naturally similar. The only distinction is that the earlier case was disposed of with direction to disburse the salary for the pre-termination period, whereas, the prayer in the present case is for disbursal of dues for the post-termination period. 10. The BTC authorities resisted the salary claim in the earlier round by projecting that the members of the petitioner’s association were terminated and they were never appointed against any sanctioned posts. 10. The BTC authorities resisted the salary claim in the earlier round by projecting that the members of the petitioner’s association were terminated and they were never appointed against any sanctioned posts. Taking this aspect into account, the WP(C) No.864/2009 was disposed of on 10.04.2012 with direction to the authorities to verify on the entitlement of salary for the school mothers and on that basis, to disburse their dues. The learned counsel Mr. P. Sarmah submits that the petitioners learnt of their termination only during the pendency of the WP(C) No.864/2009 and therefore it is argued that the association is entitled to file the second case, to claim salary for the post termination period. 11. The above submission cannot in my view be entertained, as because, the litigants were very much aware of the termination order dated 12.11.2004, when the WP(C) No.864/2009 came to be finally considered. The writ court took into account the termination order and issued direction for verification of the salary claim only for the pre-termination period. If the petitioners were aggrieved by this restrictive direction, they should have either amended the writ petition or should have taken leave of the Court, to challenge their discharge. But the association failed to do either and also did not consider it necessary to challenge the verdict in the WP(C) No.864/2009 in any higher forum. 12. In the above circumstances, to entertain a 2nd writ petition from the same association for the post-termination period, would not be justified. This is because the petitioners never challenged the Court’s earlier verdict specifying the period for which their salary claim is to be considered. Moreover, no leave was sought from the Court to challenge the termination order, in a separate proceeding. 13. As can be seen, the litigants were aware of the termination order dated 12.11.2004 during the proceeding of the WP(C) No.864/2009 and yet, they chose not to challenge the discharge order at that stage. Moreover, they failed to challenge the verdict in any higher court, although their salary claim was restricted to the pre-termination period. In fact, the petitioners had filed the contempt case in respect of the Court’s judgment in the WP(C) No.864/2009 and the Director BTC has passed a speaking order, rejecting the salary claim of the school mothers. The association has already challenged the speaking order through the WP(C) No.7804/2016 and the same is pending. In fact, the petitioners had filed the contempt case in respect of the Court’s judgment in the WP(C) No.864/2009 and the Director BTC has passed a speaking order, rejecting the salary claim of the school mothers. The association has already challenged the speaking order through the WP(C) No.7804/2016 and the same is pending. Therefore, it may not be appropriate in this case to comment on the reasons reflected in the speaking order, for rejecting the salary claim of the school mothers. 14. Nevertheless, for the reasons recorded in the preceding paragraphs, the 2nd case by the same association on practically the same cause of action, would not in my view be maintainable. Therefore this writ petition is not entertained and is dismissed. No cost.