Judgment B. P. Jha, J. 1. In an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution, the petitioner prays for quashing annexure "5". By annexure "5" the Sub-divisional Officer, Jamtara, upheld the appointment of Prasanna mahto (respondent No.3) to this post of Choukidar. 2. The relevant facts are these : Chatur Mahto had two sons, namely, padma Mahto and Prasanna Mahto Chatur Mahto was the Choukidar of village Gulu Dumaria within the district of Santhal Parganas. After his death Padma Mahto was appointed as Choukidar of that village Padma mahto died in 1944 and after that Prasanna Mahto was appointed as choukidar-vide annexure "2". The Sub-divisional Officer made a conditional order while appointing Prasanna Mahto as Choukidar. The order of appointment was that Prasanna Mahto was appointed till bishwanath Mahto (Petitioner) attained majority. On 4th April, 1978 bishwanath Mahto filed an application that he could be appointed in place of Prasanna Mahto. It is mentioned in the report of the Choukidari officer that Bishwanath Mahto did not care to file an application for his appointment, though he attained majority 20 or 22 years ago. The Sub-divisional Officer considered the report of the Choukidari Officer and rejected the application of the petitioner for the appointment to the post of Choukidar vide annexure "5". 3. On the finding of the Sub-divisional Officer, it is clear that Prasanna mahto had been working as Choukidar since 1944. It is also stated in the order that his work is satisfactory. The Sub-divisional Officer also held that since the petitioner did not apply for the post of Choukidar when he attained majority, and as such the petition for appointment was not accepted. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the post of choukidar is a hereditary one and is regulated by custom. This statement is denied by respondent No.3 in his counter-affidavit. The factum of custom and hereditariness have not been proved by the petitioner. In this connection reference made to the Sonthal Parganas Rural Police Regulation 1910 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation and the Rules framed thereunder)It s nowhere stated either in the Regulation or in the Rules framed under he Regulation that the post of Choukidar is herediary one or it is regulated by the custom. I, therefore, reject the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner on these grounds. I, therefore, reject the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner on these grounds. It is clear that on a perusal of Rule 2 of tie Rules framed under the Regulation that the Sub-divisional Officer has been vested with the power to appointment dismiss, suspend or otherwise punish Sardars and Chaukidars. If it is so, the order passed by the S. D. O. as contained in annexure "5" is a valid order. In my opinion the order passed by the Sub divisional Officer is in accordance with law and the order has been passed in the interest of justice. 5. In the result, the application is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own cost.-The petitioner has utterly failed to establish the alleged custom, referred to in the proposed order of my learned brother. Learned counsel for the petitioner a so failed to find out any infraction or violation of any rule or law. The rules framed under section 25 of the Santhal Parganas Rural Police (Regulation IV of 1910) given ample power to the Sub-divisional Officer to make the appointment of a Choukidar. This apart, the abnormal delay made by the petitioner in coming to this Court in his writ application is also to be significantly noted. In the year 1944 when respondent No.4 was appointed, the petitioner was five years of age. In spite of his attaining majority long before, he filed the application (Annexure "3") before the Sub-divisional Officer in the year 1978 when ill feeling arose between him and respondent No.3. It is not at all a fit case for interference in this writ application. For this reasons also I agree to the order proposed by my learned brother that the application must fail.