Ajit Singh; CJ.:-- Mr. K. Paul, Mr. J.P. Chauhan and Mr. A Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. B.K. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Heard on admission. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.9.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court, whereby he has dismissed appellant’s WP(C) No. 5423/2016. Pursuant to advertisement dated 19.8.97, the appellant and respondent No. 5 applied for the post of Child Development Project Officer. After the selection process, respondent No. 5 was appointed on 23.7.2003. The appellant did not challenge the appointment of respondent No. 5 for more than 9 years. He then made representation dated 29.5.2012 and thereafter filed WP(C) No. 5944/2012 which the learned Single Judge dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2012 on the ground of delay and laches. The learned Single Judge, however, directed the authorities to decide the representation of appellant. The authorities have rejected the said representation vide order 23.4.2013. The appellant then again challenged the said order dated 23.4.2013 by filing WP(C) 5423/2016, which the learned Single Judge has dismissed by the impugned order. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed summarily. Admittedly, the appellant for the first time challenged the appointment of respondent No. 5 after more than 9 years by making a representation and then filing WP(C) No. 5944/2012. Merely because his representation has been dismissed vide order dated 23.4.2013, the same will not give him fresh cause of action to challenge the appointment of respondent No. 5. The maxim vigilantibus, et non dormientibus, jura subveniunt, meaning equity comes to the aid of the vigilant and not the slumbering is very much applicable in this case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.