JUDGMENT V. K. Khanna, J. - On 1-9-1984 U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad (here- in-after referred to as the Commission) issued an advertisement for the post of a Reader in Ophthalmology for Medical College. The petitioner, who was a lecturer in Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad applied for the aforesaid post. Normally eight candidates are invited for one post; but Commission. this time, invited sixteen candidates for interview on 11th and 12th August, 1986 for the aforesaid post of Reader. The Commission on' 20-8-1986 published the result, whereby Dr. Sandeep Mittal was selected and the petitioner was placed at serial No. I in the waiting list. 2. There were two posts of Readers in the Medical College at the time of requisition as well as at the time of advertisement and selection; but applications were invited only for one post of Reader. The petitioner as such, made representations to the Government of U.P. and the Commission in 1986 and 1987 for his appointment against the second post of Reader. In his representation the petitioner has given instances where the persons placed in the waiting list have been appointed against the post which was not advertised, although was in existence at the of selection and the petitioner as such, requested that he may be given the same treatment which has been given to others. The Government after considering the representation of the petitioner vide letter dated 9-3-1988 requested the Commission for its opinion regarding the appointment of the petitioner on the second post of Reader in the Medical College. In this letter the Government also gave instances of appointment from waiting list against the post which was existing in the year of selection but was not advertised. The Commission however, in view of its policy decision dated 23-7-1988 did not agree with the view of the Government. According -to this policy decision of the Commission, the Commission has resolved that the persons, whose names are mentioned in the waiting list can he appointed only against the post which has been advertised and not against the new post. The petitioner as such, has filed this writ petition for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Reader and for quashing the opinion expressed by the Commission to the Government. 3. The petitioner as such, has filed this writ petition for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Reader and for quashing the opinion expressed by the Commission to the Government. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of the Government Order dated 25-:Z-1985 the petitioner is entitled to be appointed against the second post of Reader, which was in existence at the time of requisition as well as selection and is still available. According to this G.O. in cases where selection in made by Commission every year, the waiting list is to last for one year only and in cases where the selection is not made by the Commission every year, the candidates mentioned in the waiting list can be appointed against the vacancies till the selection is held provided the vacancy was ,available during the year of selection. Clause 2 of this Order further provides that if the vacancy referred to above has been carried forward to the next year and forwarded to the Commission then it will not be treated to be the vacancy of the year of selection. 4. In the present case the vacancy of second post of Reader was available at the time of advertisement as well as selection and is still available. It has not been carried forward in the following year and has not been recommended to the commission for advertisement. As such, it remains a vacancy of the year of selection. Petitioner's case is fully covered by the aforesaid G.O. and the petitioner is entitled to be appointed to the post of Reader in Ophthalmology in the Medical College in the State. 5. In this connection, it may be mentioned that even the Commission has resolved in August, 1981 for appointment of the persons from the waiting list if the vacancy was available either before or after the advertisement. Similar decision was taken by the Commission on 20-8-1982. However, as mentioned above the Commission had taken a different decision on 23-7-1983. This is a policy decision of the Commission but no reason has been given in support of this decision so as to enable the Court to find out as to whether the decision is fair and reasonable. 6. It is open, to the Government not to fill any vacancy in case there is no necessity for such appointment. This is a policy decision of the Commission but no reason has been given in support of this decision so as to enable the Court to find out as to whether the decision is fair and reasonable. 6. It is open, to the Government not to fill any vacancy in case there is no necessity for such appointment. In the instant case the Government has conveyed its view to the Commission for appointment against the second post of Reader from the waiting list. Commission itself, in the past has recommended for appointment of person from the waiting list against the post, which was available before or after the selection. Number of such instances has been given by the petitioner in his writ petition as well as in the rejoinder affidavit. Even the Government in its letter dated 9-3-1988 has mentioned some cases where appointments had been made from the waiting list on the recommendation of the Commission against the vacancies, which were not advertised. 7. The Commission has not given any reason either in its resolution dated 23-7-1983 or in the counter affidavit filed before this Court in support of its decision. In- case the additional hands are required and the vacancy was available at the time of advertisement and selection, Government would be fully justified to make appointment from the waiting list. The view of the Commission is as such, absolutely arbitrary and unjustified. 8. For the reasons given above the writ petition is allowed and a writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents, directing them to appoint the petitioner on the post of Reader in Ophthalmology in Medal College in the State. In view of the facts and circumstances of the costs.