MC 3429/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P.K. MUSAHARY The application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is quite v ague. This appeal has been filed by six persons. It is stated that since one of the a ppellants had fallen sick with viral fever, the appeal could not be filed in tim e. There is no mention on which date one of the appellants had fallen sick. It i s also not mentioned on which date he recovered. It is further stated that when the appellants approached the lawyer to file an a ppeal, the lawyer required some papers, which were not in possession of the appe llants. It is not stated when the papers were made ready etc. We are sorry to note that this application for condonation of delay has been dr afted in an extremely casual manner. Notwithstanding the fact that this application has no substance, we have heard l earned counsel for the appellants on the merits of the case. The appellants have challenged the order dated 7.9.20009 passed a learned Single Judge in WP(C) 4121/2003. The services of the appellants were dispensed with in the year 2000 and they app roached this Court for relief three years later. There is no explanation for the delay in approaching this Court for granting relief to them. The learned Single Judge has noted that on an another occasion the appellants ha d approached this Court by way of WP(C) No. 4635/2005 which was dismissed on 3.3 .2003. While disposing of WP(C) No. 4635/2005 it was observed that the appellant s are engaged on a daily basis and since there is no work available to them they cannot be continued as Very High Frequency Operators in Nalbari District. Notwithstanding the dismissal of that writ petition, the appellants have approac hed this Court challenging their discharge from service by filing WP(C) No. 4121 /2003. The present writ appeal has arisen as a result of the dismissal of the sa id writ petition. Since the appellants were admittedly appointed on a daily basis, and there is no work for them, their discharge from service is justified. No right has been sho wn by them for continuance in service. We do not find any error in law in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed.