IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3480 of 2009 Between: P. Saritha, D/o. Venkatesh, R/o. Kamalla Village & Post, Erragutla Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The AP GENCO, Rep by its Chief General Manager (Admn), Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The AP GENCO, Rep by its Chairman & Managing Director, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein reducing the arks from 48 to 35 in written test held on 28-1-2009 for the post of Sub-Engineering (Electrical) as illegal, arbitrary and consequently this Hon'ble Court may pleased to declared that the petitioner secured 48 marks as per the General Merit list published on 10-1-2009 and consequently direct the respondents to consider the cse of the petitioner for appointment as Sub-Engineer (Electrical) and grant Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.R.TAGORE Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM(SC FOR AP GENCO) The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3480 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. Petitioner applied for the post of Sub-Engineer pursuant to the notification issued in the month of November, 2008. She appeared for the written examination held on 23-11-2008. She secured 48 marks. She was called for interview on 28-1-2009. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the subsequent list released on 16-1-2009, marks secured by her in written examination have been displayed as 35. Therefore, she submitted her representation dated 9-2-2009 pointing out the discrepancies with regard to the marks awarded to her as published in the internet on 16-1-2009. Her representation remained unattended. Hence, she approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri K. Chidambaram, learned standing counsel of A.P. Genco takes notice on behalf of the Respondents No. 1 and 2. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that her representation pointing out the discrepancies in the marks awarded to her in the written examination has remained unattended. 6. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 9-2-2009 and take appropriate decision and communicate the same to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 24th February, 2009. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3480 OF 2009 24th February, 2009.