JUDGMENT A. B. CHAUDHARI, J. :- By the present petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to grant relaxation from the examination of NET/SLET in the matter of appointment to the post of Librarian in the respondent No. 4/college. 2. In support of the writ petition, Mr. Jibhkate learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Librarian since 19-10-2005 and he not having passed the NET/SLET examination, his proposal was forwarded to respondents 3 and 4 for relaxation in accordance with the extant regulations. Reminders were sent to respondent No. 4/UGC who did not respond for number of years. Finally the proposal remained pending and was not considered for exemption. The petitioner was not at fault and in accordance with the extant regulations he was entitled to exemption to be granted by respondent No.2, considering the case of the petitioner at the relevant time. Therefore, this Court should direct respondent No.2 to grant relaxation though respondent No.4 has selected a qualified candidate to the post of Librarian held by the petitioner. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 invited our attention to the submissions filed by respondents 3 and 4 and pointed out that though the facts stated by the counsel for the petitioner regarding the proposal sent for relaxation are correct, fact remains that now the respondents have selected a candidate by name Prashant Kashinath Ganvir who is NET/SLET passed and his selection has been approved by the Selection Committee. The counsel therefore argued that it is now too late for the petitioner to make such a claim. The respondents cannot flout the requirement regarding qualification provided by U.G.C. since now a qualified candidate has become available having passed NET/SLET. The counsel therefore prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for rival parties. It is true that the petitioner was appointed as a Librarian though he was not the holder of NET/SLET in the year 2005. It is also true that his proposal for relaxation on NET/SLET was forwarded to the U.G.C. which is the competent authority to consider the relaxation. For some or other reason the said proposal remained pending with the U.G.C. for all these years. It is also true that his proposal for relaxation on NET/SLET was forwarded to the U.G.C. which is the competent authority to consider the relaxation. For some or other reason the said proposal remained pending with the U.G.C. for all these years. It is seen from the submissions made by respondents 3 and 4 that the petitioner being not qualified to continue to hold the post of Librarian, permission to advertise the said post was granted by respondent No. 1 on 17-9-2009. The post was advertised on 19-11-2009 and finally the selection took place in which Prashant Kashinath Ganvir holding NET/SLET qualification for the post of Librarian was selected and his appointment was approved on 3-5-2010. The Selection Committee had selected the said candidate and thus now the respondents 3 and 4 have a duty qualified candidate for the post of Librarian in place of the petitioner. It may be true that the petitioner was not at fault inasmuch as he had claimed the relaxation under the extant rules at the relevant time. The petitioner kept quiet for all these years right from 2005 and did not take steps in accordance with law at the appropriate time. It is note worthy that the petitioner remained quiet even after the publication of the advertisement for the post in question i.e. of 19-112009. The case of the petitioner is thus covered by the maxim Vigilantihus. et non Dormientihus, Jura Suhveniunt, the law assists who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their right. 5. For the above reasons, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.