ORDER S.N. Prasad, J. - Petitioner is aggrieved with that part of the order dated 30.9.2015 passed by the Sub-Collector-cum-Enquiring Officer, Panchpir, Karanjia by which the Sub-Collector on the one hand come to conclusion that the selection was not genuine and as such selected candidate namely Smt. Parbati Tudu has been disengaged with direction upon the opposite parties to go for fresh selection. 2. Petitioner being aggrieved with that part of the order to the effect that the authorities have passed order regarding going for fresh selection has approached this Court by way of this writ petition. 3. Case of the petitioner is that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 4.5.2015 three candidates namely, present petitioner, Parbati Tudu and Smt. Pravasini Mohanta had submitted their applications and on scrutiny it was found that Smt. Pravasini Mohanta is an outsider of the area of operation of the Chandaposi Sahi Mini Anganwadi Centre as well as her candidature was rejected. After her rejection, selection process was started in between the present petitioner and Parbati Tudu, Parbati Tudu was selected on the basis of the highest marks obtained in Class-VIII examination. Petitioner raised her objection on 29.6.2015 with respect to the authenticity and genuineness of mark sheet produced by Parbati Tutu at the time of selection. Objection of the petitioner having been registered by the appellate authority as Anganwadi Case No.15 of 2015, enquiry has been conducted with respect to veracity and genuineness of mark sheet produced by Parbati Tudu. The Sub-Collector-cum-Enquiring Officer issued notice to all the selected candidates and also upon the Headmaster of Bisramunda High School who has produced original records and submitted that only transfer certificate has been issued to Parbati Tudu not mark sheet. Opposite party no.2 after verifying the original record and after going through the statement of the Headmaster of the concerned school who has specifically asserted that the mark sheet, based upon which, Parbati Tudu has been selected, has not been issued by the school, has passed an order of disengagement, however direction has been passed for fresh selection. 4. Opposite party no.2 after verifying the original record and after going through the statement of the Headmaster of the concerned school who has specifically asserted that the mark sheet, based upon which, Parbati Tudu has been selected, has not been issued by the school, has passed an order of disengagement, however direction has been passed for fresh selection. 4. Petitioner being aggrieved with that part of the order of the Sub-Collector regarding going for fresh selection has approached this Court on the ground that if the authorities would have acted in proper manner at the time of verification of documents with regard to genuineness of certificates, the petitioner would have been selected but due to the latches on the part of the selection committee Parbati Tudu has been selected and subsequently her engagement was rejected after verifying documents produced by the Headmaster of the school. 5. It has been submitted that when the Sub-Collector-cum-Enquiring Officer has come to conclusion that fraud has been committed by the selected candidate namely Parbati Tudu and her engagement has been rejected, hence petitioner being second candidate would have been selected and engaged. He has further submitted that if the authorities would have acted in proper manner the petitioner would have been selected but due to latches on the part of the authorities in no verifying the documents, rightful claim of the petitioner has not been considered as such petitioner cannot be made to suffer due to latches and negligence committed by the selection committee. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has contested the case by relying various paragraphs of the counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that there is no guideline to engage next candidate in case of disengagement resulting in vacancy and there is no provision of waiting list. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of documents available on record the fact which is not in dispute that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 4.5.2015 the petitioner along with two other candidates participated in the selection process. One candidate being outsider her candidature has been rejected. Only two candidates namely present petitioner and Parbati Tudu remains in the fray. One candidate being outsider her candidature has been rejected. Only two candidates namely present petitioner and Parbati Tudu remains in the fray. Parbati Tudu has placed reliance upon the mark sheet of 8th Class examination and on the basis of highest marks secured in the 8th Class examination she has been selected and engaged being highest scorer of marks in the examination. 8. Petitioner has raised objection regarding veracity of the 8th class mark sheet before the Sub-Collector, on the complaint having been made by the petitioner before the Sub-Collector, Sub-Collector initiated proceeding and issued notices to the selected candidates and Headmaster of the concerned school with a direction to come out with specific report for verification of 8th Class certificate of the successful candidate along with the document which was produced before the selection Committee. Headmaster of the school has appeared before the Sub-Collector and has submitted that only transfer certificate has been issued from the school in question and no mark sheet has been issued which has been produced by the successful candidate before the selection committee. The Sub-Collector after considering all these aspects of the matter and after providing opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, has come to finding that selection of the successful candidate is not genuine as such order of disengagement has been passed with a direction to go for fresh selection. 9. Grievance of the petitioner is against that part of the order by which direction has been issued to go for fresh selection which according to the petitioner is absolutely incorrect and without application of mind because of the fact that the petitioner is the sole genuine candidate after disengagement of the first candidate if the authority would have acted in proper manner in scrutinising the testimonials, the petitioner would have been selected. 10. Second ground taken by the petitioner is that if the authorities would have acted in proper manner and if the documents which have been produced by the successful candidate would have been corroborated from the original document, there would not have been question of selection of Parbati Tudu. 11. I find substance in the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that even in the guideline there is provision of verification of certificate and date of verification as also fixed in this case on 19.5.2015. 11. I find substance in the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that even in the guideline there is provision of verification of certificate and date of verification as also fixed in this case on 19.5.2015. For verification of certificates/documents it cannot be said to be mere formality. When there is specific date of verification of documents the authorities could have verified from its original or even by calling original record. This procedure has not been done while verifying documents of Parbati Tudu which has subsequently been found to be engaged on the basis of forged certificate as such disengaged. 12. Question of going for fresh selection would not arise because of the reason that authorities if during the process of verification of documents verified from its original certificates, candidature of Parbati Tudu was bound to be rejected and in that situation petitioner would have been appointed as Anganwadi Worker but due to latches on the part of the selection committee, Parbati Tudu has been engaged disclaiming original right of the petitioner. 13. Advertisement was published on 4.5.2015, disengagement order has been passed on 4.8.2015, it is merely more than three and half months and it is not also that one or two years has elapsed, but the ground which has been taken in the counter affidavit that there is no provision in the guideline to go for fresh selection it is not seems to be proper ground because of the reason that wrong candidate has been selected and subsequently Sub-Collector being Chairman of the Selection committee has found that the selection is based upon forged document, order of disengagement has been passed, hence Sub-Collector ought to have issued order regarding engagement of the petitioner being rightful candidate in the selection process. 14. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the single bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Sukanti Jena v. State of Odisha and others reported in 2013(I) OLR 391 . Referring to paragraph-12 of the said order it has been submitted that this Court has deprecated action of the authorities in going for fresh selection after engagement order has been cancelled. 15. Referring to paragraph-12 of the said order it has been submitted that this Court has deprecated action of the authorities in going for fresh selection after engagement order has been cancelled. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Surya Kanti Sahoo v. Secretary, Department of Women and Child Devellpment, Odisha and others reported in 2012 (Supp.-I) OLR 718 wherein also A.D.M. has passed order of disengagement of selected candidate but when that order has been reversed by learned Single Bench under writ jurisdiction which was subsequently been challenged in writ appeal the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has been pleased to quash that part of order directing engagement of second candidate in the selection process. Applying the ratio of these two orders, in my considered view, part of the order by which fresh selection process has been directed to be conducted, is not sustainable, on the ground that there is no latches on the part of the petitioner, if the authorities would have resorted to proper procedure of selection, petitioner would have been selected. 16. Accordingly, the part of the order to go for fresh selection is set aside. 17. In the result, writ petition is disposed of, directing the authorities to issue engagement order in favour of the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Final Result : Disposed Off