THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.7502 OF 2010 Dated 7th April, 2010 Between: Smt.P.Venkat Sakshmamma …Petitioner And The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Retail Outlet, H.No.3-6-436 to 438, II & III Floors, Naspur House, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad, rep. by its Executive Director and 2 others. …Responden0ts Counsel for the petitioner: Sri C.Siva Sankar Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Sri T.Srinivas Counsel for Respondent No.3: Sri.P.N.Murthy The Court made the following Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not awarding four marks to the petitioner under the head ‘Experience’ and in awarding marks under the said head to respondent No.3 while considering the applications of both the candidates for retail outlet dealership for Allagadda Town, Kurnool District, as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, it is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has got an effective remedy by approaching the Grievance Redressal Committee according to the in-house procedure evolved by respondent No.1- Corporation and that if any illegalities or irregularities in awarding of marks are detected, the same can be rectified and corrective action can be taken. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to refer the petitioner’s grievances to the Grievance Redressal Committee, which shall look into the petitioner’s grievances already projected through his representations, dated 29-03-2010 and 01-04-2010, and recommend appropriate action thereon to respondent No.1. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though it is not specifically pleaded in the affidavit, it has been noticed that the evaluation statement, dated 25-03-2010, shows that respondent No.3 has been evaluated twice by assigning different ranks viz., rank No.1 and rank No.3 with 90.09 and 85.99 marks respectively. A prima facie perusal of the said statement supports the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The Grievance Redressal Committee is directed to examine this aspect as well while considering the grievances of the petitioner. It is needless to observe that till disposal of the petitioner’s grievances and communication of order thereon, respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall not give effect to the selection of respondent No.3. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.9660 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 7th April, 2010 lur