JUDGMENT : A.K. RATH, J. 1. This petition challenges the order dated 25.4.2008 passed by the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Bargarh, opposite party No. 2, disengaging the petitioner from the post of Gram Rozgar Sevak, vide Annexure-6. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Bargarh, opposite party No. 2, issued an advertisement on 13.8.2007 to fill up the posts of Gram Rozgar Sevak (hereinafter referred to as “the GRS”) in respect of 248 Gram Panchayats of Bargarh District. The petitioner applied for the post. He was selected and empanelled in the G.P. wise panel list under Bijepur Block. Thereafter, the Sarpanch, Sanbausen G.P. issued a letter on 14.11.2007 appointing him as GRS in Sanbausen G.P. vide Annexure-3. While the matter stood thus, the Collector, Bargarh, opposite party No. 1, issued a show cause notice on 31.3.2008 to the petitioner to disengage him from the post and engage opposite party No. 4 in his place on the ground that opposite party No. 4 has secured more marks than the petitioner. He submitted reply on 14.4.2008. On 25.4.2008 the P.D., DRDA sent a letter to the Sarpanch stating therein that on examination of mark sheet and other document at DRDA level, it was found that the opposite party No. 4 has passed +2 examination compartmentally. The 1st mark sheet of +2 examination issued by CHSE, Bhubaneswar in favour of opposite party No. 4 reveals that he has secured 388 marks. Subsequently on repetition he has secured 30 marks in English in 1st +2 examination and 91 marks in compartmental examination. After recalculation, his total marks became 449 (388+91-30). The marks secured by opposite party No. 4 is highest. Thus he is eligible to the post of GRS. The Collector, Bargarh directed to disengage the petitioner and engage opposite party No. 4. 3. An additional affidavit has been filed by the opposite party No. 2. It is stated that the applicants were required to submit the applications in complete respect. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner, opposite party No. 4 and five others applied for the post of GRS. The petitioner was selected. At the time of scrutiny of marks of the candidates obtained in +2 examination, it was found that the petitioner had secured more marks than opposite party No. 4. Accordingly, he was provisionally selected and engaged as GRS. The petitioner was selected. At the time of scrutiny of marks of the candidates obtained in +2 examination, it was found that the petitioner had secured more marks than opposite party No. 4. Accordingly, he was provisionally selected and engaged as GRS. Thereafter, opposite party No. 4 submitted a representation. On receipt of the same, opposite party No. 1 directed an enquiry and it was found that opposite party No. 4 had secured more marks than the petitioner. 4. Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the Asst. Project Director (MIS), Bargarh on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2. It is stated that the petitioner applied to be engaged as GRS under Sanbausen G.P. He was provisionally selected. Accordingly, intimation was sent to him, vide Annexure-A/1. While the matter stood thus, opposite party No. 4 submitted a complaint stating therein that he had secured more marks than the petitioner in +2 examination and, as such, he was eligible to the post of GRS. But then, his case had been ignored. On receipt of the complaint from opposite party No. 4, opposite party No. 1 directed an enquiry. On scrutiny of the mark sheet of +2 examination issued by CHSE, Orissa in favour of opposite party No. 4, it was found that he secured 30 marks in English in +2 examination for the first time but he failed. Subsequently, he passed the examination compartmentally by securing 91 marks in English and, as such, his marks in +2 examination were arrived at as 449 (388-30+91). Opposite party No. 4 had secured highest marks amongst all candidates. The selection of GRS is made according to marks secured in +2 examination. Opposite party No. 4 has secured more marks than the petitioner and, as such, he is eligible to the post of GRS. The petitioner was wrongly selected and engaged as GRS. Accordingly, show cause was issued by the opposite party No. 1. The petitioner submitted his reply. The same was examined and rejected by the opposite party No. 1. The petitioner had never asked for any mark sheet or document of the opposite party No. 4. He participated in the proceeding. It is further stated that the Sarpanch, Sanbausen G.P was instructed on 25.4.2008 to disengage the petitioner and engage opposite party No. 4 in his place. The same was examined and rejected by the opposite party No. 1. The petitioner had never asked for any mark sheet or document of the opposite party No. 4. He participated in the proceeding. It is further stated that the Sarpanch, Sanbausen G.P was instructed on 25.4.2008 to disengage the petitioner and engage opposite party No. 4 in his place. Accordingly, the petitioner was disengaged by opposite party No. 3 on 8.5.2008. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party No. 4. It is stated that the G.P. wise panel list was prepared on 7.11.2007 for the post of GRS under Bijepur Block. He was not selected. He submitted a representation to the Project Director, DRDA as well as the Collector, Bhadrak for rechecking of marks of the applicants including him. The specific case of the opposite party No. 4 is that he had appeared in the Annual Higher Secondary Examination in the year 2003. He secured 388 marks out of 900. Thereafter, he again appeared the examination compartmentally in the year 2004. He secured 91 marks in English. Thus he secured 449 marks (388+91-30) out of 900. Due to wrong calculation of marks, the petitioner was appointed as GRS in Sanbausen G.P. on 14.11.2007. The Collector, Bargarh issued show cause notice to the petitioner to disengage him from the post. The petitioner submitted his reply. After considering the material, the Collector, Bargarh passed the order directing to disengage the petitioner. It is further stated that the revised panel list was published on 25.4.2008 wherein it is mentioned that opposite party No. 4 has secured 449 marks out of 900. 6. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by opposite parties 1 and 2 as well as opposite party No. 4. It is stated that the candidature of the opposite party No. 4 was rejected at the time of scrutiny. The application was not duly filled up. Though opposite party No. 4 has stated that the total marks in +2 Arts are 562, but in reality, the total marks in +2 Arts are 900. Since his application was incomplete, the same was rejected summarily. 7. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that an advertisement was issued by the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Bargarh, opposite party No. 2, on 13.8.2007 to fill up the post of GRS. Since his application was incomplete, the same was rejected summarily. 7. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that an advertisement was issued by the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Bargarh, opposite party No. 2, on 13.8.2007 to fill up the post of GRS. The advertisement stipulates that incomplete applications are liable for rejection summarily. The opposite party No. 4 submitted incomplete application. He has not filed any document. The application form of the opposite party No. 4 shows that the total marks in +2 Arts are ‘562’ but in reality, the same is 900. The marks obtained in HSC and +2 examination have not been mentioned. In view of the stipulation in the advertisement that incomplete applications are liable for rejection summarily, the application of the opposite party No. 4 was rejected on scrutiny. He further submits that the defect in the application form renders candidature of the opposite party No. 4 ineligible for the post. He relies on the decisions in the case of T. Jayakumar v. A. Gopu & Another, (2008) 9 SCC 403 and Neena v. Public Service Commission, 2010 (1) KLT 258 . 8. Per contra Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 2, submits that the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Bargarh, opposite party No. 2, issued an advertisement on 13.8.2007 to fill up the post of GRS. The petitioner applied for the post. He was selected and empanelled in the G.P. wise panel list under Bijepur Block. Thereafter, the Sarpanch, Sanbausen G.P. issued a letter on 14.11.2007 appointing him as GRS in Sanbausen G.P. While the matter stood thus, the Collector, Bargarh, opposite party No. 1, issued show cause on 31.3.2008 to the petitioner to disengage him from the post and to engage opposite party No. 4 in his place on the ground that opposite party No. 4 has secured more marks than the petitioner. He submitted the reply on 14.4.2008. On 25.4.2008 the P.D., DRDA sent a letter to the Sarpanch stating therein that on examination of mark sheet and other document at DRDA level, it was found that the opposite party No. 4 has passed +2 examination compartmentally. The 1st mark sheet of +2 examination issued by CHSE, Bhubaneswar in favour of opposite party No. 4 reveals that he has secured 388 marks. The 1st mark sheet of +2 examination issued by CHSE, Bhubaneswar in favour of opposite party No. 4 reveals that he has secured 388 marks. Subsequently on the repetition, he has secured 30 marks in English in 1st +2 examination and 91 marks in compartmental examination. After recalculation, his total marks became 449 (388+91-30). The marks secured by opposite party No. 4 is highest. Thus he is eligible to the post of GRS. The Project Director directed to disengage the petitioner and engage the opposite party No. 4. 9. Mr. Routray, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 4, supports the arguments of the learned counsel for the State. 10. In course of hearing, Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 2, has produced the record relating to selection of GRS under Sarpanch, Sanbausen G.P. On scrutiny of the same, it reveals that the petitioner, opposite party No. 4 and others applied for the post of GRS. In the educational bio-data, the column meant for “marks secured” the opposite party No. 4 has mentioned the marks of HSC as well as +2 Arts in the column “Total marks.” The same is not a ground to reject the application of the opposite party No. 4. Moreover, opposite party No. 4 has annexed all mark sheets. If there is any variance, the employer can verify the same from the mark sheets attached to the application form. On a scrutiny of the mark sheets, the opposite party No. 2 found that opposite party No. 4 has secured more marks than the petitioner in +2 examination. The petitioner has secured 433. The opposite party No. 4 has secured 449 marks, which is much more than the petitioner. In view of the same, the Collector has rightly disengaged the petitioner from the post of GRS. 11. In T. Jayakumar (supra), the apex Court held that once a candidate is eligible in the selection process, the selection authorities are precluded from examining whether his application was complete, in order, within time or otherwise acceptable. In view of the same, the Collector has rightly disengaged the petitioner from the post of GRS. 11. In T. Jayakumar (supra), the apex Court held that once a candidate is eligible in the selection process, the selection authorities are precluded from examining whether his application was complete, in order, within time or otherwise acceptable. A defect in the application form renders the candidate ineligible might be overlooked in the initial screening and as a result he may be called for interview and may get a chance to take part in selection process but that alone does not mean that the candidate cannot be held ineligible for selection at a later stage once the defect in the application comes to light. 12. In Neena N.K. Tharavattath House (supra), the candidature of the petitioner was rejected for wrong recording of the category number. The question arose before the Kerala High Court as to whether the rejection of the application for wrongly recording the category number was justified or not. It was held that the category number was vital for the validity of the application. There was no specific provision for allowing a candidate to correct an entry in the category code. The Court held that laxity in one case will leave open the flood gate of requests to condone such irregularities or omissions. 13. The decisions cited by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, are distinguishable on facts. The application of the opposite party No. 4 was complete. Opposite party No. 4 submitted the application along with all testimonials and mark sheets. Merely because the opposite party No. 4 has mentioned the marks in the column of “total mark” the same is not per se a ground to reject his application. As would be evident from the counter affidavit, which are not denied by the petitioner that the opposite party No. 4 has secured 449 marks while the petitioner has secured 433 marks. 14. In view of the same, the Collector is justified in disengaging the petitioner from the post of GRS and engaging the opposite party No. 4 in his place on the ground that opposite party No. 4 has secured more marks than the petitioner. 15. The inescapable conclusion is the writ petition, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.