JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. 1. This intra Court appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 6.8.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court, whereby he has dismissed appellants’ WP(C) No.4689/2012. 2. The appellants were appointed as Assistant Teachers in two different Venture Schools of Assam. Appellant No.1 was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Thailoo Bagan Middle English School on 1.1.1980 by the Managing Committee whereas Appellant No. 2 was appointed in Jayashree Shramik Middle English School on 1.4.1984. On 16.11.1991, the services of teachers were provincialised, but the names of appellants were dropped. On 30.3.2001, the District Elementary Education Officer, Cachar forwarded the names of appellants for the purpose of provincialization. He, in his second letter dated 8.2.2005, again forwarded the names of appellants for provincialisation. The Screening Committee was constituted for considering the cases of dropped teachers and the appellants also appeared before the Committee on 27.11.2005. Thereafter, a High Power Committee was constituted pursuant to an order of the High Court, which considered the names of appellants in its meeting held on 30.8.2006. The Committee, however, rejected their names on the ground that sanction orders and post approval orders of their appointments were not found. The Committee also held that even their names were not found in the detail particulars of Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff of the School. The names of teachers, who were selected for provincialisation by the High Power Committee, were duly published in news papers. The appellants, instead of challenging the decision of the High Power Committee rejecting their names, again represented for consideration of their names before the Block Elementary Education Officer, Rajabazar, who, in a routine manner, forwarded the same vide letter dated 8.9.2011, and in turn, the District Elementary Education Officer, Cachar further forwarded the representation vide his letter dated 19.11.2011. The appellants ultimately filed WP(C) No.4698/2012 after 6 years in the year 2012 and the learned Single Judge by the impugned order has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The drive for provincialisation of teachers was carried out on 16.11.1991, wherein the names of appellants were dropped. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The drive for provincialisation of teachers was carried out on 16.11.1991, wherein the names of appellants were dropped. As seen above, their names were finally considered by the High Power Committee on 30.8.2006 and met rejection by cogent reasons. The Select List prepared by the High Power Committee for provincialisation was also published in news papers and yet the appellants did not challenge the same for 6 years to ventilate their grievances, which accrued in the year 1992, i.e. before 20 years of filing the writ petition. The maxim vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt which means ‘the law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights’ is very much applicable in the present case. The appellants have slept over their legal rights, if any, and as such, no relief can be granted to them. 4. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.