Brijesh Kumar, C. J. — This appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1.4.99 passed in Civil Rule No.1703 of 1998. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned State Counsel, Assam. We have also perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It appears that the petitioner-appellants were working in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Gauhati, as temporary employees at a consolidated amount of Rs. 900 PM, but services of such employees, numbering about 60, were terminated by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 31.5.93. Some of those employees approached this Court by filing a civil rule. The civil rule being rejected, they preferred an appeal which was allowed. The order of termination of the petitioners were set aside and they were directed to be accommodated, which was complied with by the respondents. It is informed that apart from those who had approached this Court by filing a petition in the year 1994,6 other persons had also approached this Court and they also got the relief. The relief was granted in the year 1996. The present petitioners-appellants approached this Court by filing a petition in the year 1998. The learned Single Judge refused to grant relief to the appellants as there was delay of 5 years in ^ filing the petition challenging the order of termination passed in the year 1993. Therefore, on the ground of inordinate delay and laches on the part of the appellants-petitioners, they have been non suited. 3. In the writ appeal an additional affidavit has. been filed to explain the laches. Two documents were annexed, supposed to be representations preferred by the petitioners in the year 1994. Nothing seems to have been done after moving that representation in the year, 1994. 4. On behalf of the appellants, it is submitted that it was expected and hoped by the petitioners that since the termination orders of other employees similarly situated had been set aside arid they had been reinstated, petitioners may also have been given the same benefit. In this connection suffice it to observe that we have perused one of the orders passed by the Division Bench, namely, Writ Appeal No. 213 of 1993 decided in Feb/1994. In this connection suffice it to observe that we have perused one of the orders passed by the Division Bench, namely, Writ Appeal No. 213 of 1993 decided in Feb/1994. By the said order a direction was given to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup to accommodate the 10 petitioners of that petition as named in the operative part of that order. Hence, on that basis perhaps there was no hope of their being accommodated. Another order said to have been paused in another appeal is not before us. The learned Single Judge has observed in the order that those persons promptly approached this Court against the order of termination in the year 1993 itself. But the writ petition in the present case was filed in 1998. Thus even after the appeal was decided in 1996, the petitioners waited for two years and filed the writ petition in 1998. The other order passed on 24.7.96 in another writ petition for accommodating the petitioners in the said case was conditional k subject to availability of vacancy. On merit, petitioners may or may not have any case, but the question of laches has generally to be considered apart from that aspect. In the present case termination order has been challenged after five years. There is no good reason explaining the laches. Hence, no illegality is committed by the learned Single Judge in refusing to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and refusing to set aside the order at this belated stage. During this period of 5 years, it is not known as to how many vacancies may have occurred and filled up. The manner in which arrangements may have been made may also get upset. Hence, after passing of the order about 5 years back, no relief can ordinarily be granted to the appellants as held by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that now some recruitment is going to take place for appointment in Grade IV employees in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup in respect of which advertisement has also been published. It is submitted that if the petitioner-appellants apply as per the said advertisement, some of them may be over aged. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that now some recruitment is going to take place for appointment in Grade IV employees in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup in respect of which advertisement has also been published. It is submitted that if the petitioner-appellants apply as per the said advertisement, some of them may be over aged. It is submitted that there exist special circumstances which entitle the petitioners-appellants for consideration of relaxation of age, as some of the similarly situated persons have already got relief and have already been accommodated, but on account of delay in approaching ttie Court, the same relief has been denied to the present appellants. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we decline to interfere in the passed by the learned Single Judge. We provide however, that in case any of the appellants has become over aged, he may apply for the post advertised as indicated along with a representation for relaxation of upper age limit, and in case any such application is given, the same shall be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law. 6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed subject to the observation made in the proceeding paragraph.