JUDGMENT B.R. Sarangi, J. - Heard Mr. D.P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B. Senapati, learned Addl. Government Advocate and Ms. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party no.3. 2. The petitioner has filed this application seeking direction to revise the final merit list and place him at his correct place and give him appointment as Multi Purpose Assistant (Grama Rozgar Sevak) in Tikarpada Grampachayat of Bhubaneswar Block in Khorda district pursuant to Annexure-1. 3. Mr. D.P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that pursuant to advertisement issued in Annexure-1 on 10.11.2017, the petitioner applied for the post and his application was considered and provisional merit list was prepared by the authority. In the said provisional merit list, the petitioner's name find place at serial no.6, whereas the name of opposite party no.3 was finds place at serial no.7 having secured less mark than that of the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner secured 51.86 percent marks, whereas opposite party no.3 secured 51.83 marks and otherwise the petitioner having secured higher marks, is eligible to be appointed as Multi Purpose Assistant (Grama Rozgar Sevak) on contractual basis. But while publishing the final merit list, the name of the petitioner was deleted and opposite party no.3 was placed at the top of the list in place of the petitioner, who was below the petitioner at serial no.7 of the provisional merit list. 4. Pursuant to notice, opposite party no.1 filed counter affidavit and justified the action taken by the authority in selecting opposite party no.3 and contended that the application submitted by the petitioner does not contain the residential certificate, thereby he has not been given engagement though his name finds place in the provisional merit list. 5. Opposite party no.3 filed counter affidavit stating that the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he has not submitted residential certificate along with the application form, thereby no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority in selecting opposite party no.3 for engagement as Multi Purpose Assistant (Grama Rozgar Sevak). 6. Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that the advertisement issued in Annexure-1 dated 10.11.2017 specifically described certain documents to be submitted. 6. Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that the advertisement issued in Annexure-1 dated 10.11.2017 specifically described certain documents to be submitted. Relevant portion of which is extracted below:- "xxx xxx Documents to be submitted (i) HSC Board Certificate and mark sheet. (ii) 10+2 Certificate and mark sheet. (iii) Computer certificate and mark sheet. (iv) Resident certificate issued (within 06 months of the last date of the application. (v) Two nos. of passport size photographs (affixed in the application form) xxx xxx 7. On perusal of the above, it appears that clause-(iv) stipulates that the candidate, who applied for the post of Multi Purpose Assistant (Grama Rozgar Sevak), has to submit the "resident certificate issued (within 06 months of the last date of the application" meaning thereby, the residential certificate issued by the competent authority preceding 06 months from the last date of application, would be taken into consideration along with the application submitted by him/her for consideration of engagement for the post of Multi Purpose Assistant (Grama Rozgar Sevak). 8. But the petitioner has not submitted such residential certificate along with his application form for consideration of his application, Even if he has secured 51.86 marks and opposite party no.3 secured 51.83 marks, but his application was defective one, for which the same was not considered and the authority has rightly rejected the same. 9. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity committed by the authority so as to warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is hereby dismissed. In view of dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order dated 12.06.2018 passed in IA No.8028 of 2018 stands vacated.