JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. The judgment under appeal has been passed in favour of the respondent- writ petitioner and the decision of the Unit Trust of India dated 28.6.2001 contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition has been set aside with a direction to the authorities of the UTI to offer appointment to the writ petitioner on the post of Staff Officer Grade A in the Unit Trust of India or its Associates as per his position in the combined merit-list subject to usual terms and conditions of scrutiny at that stage. It is further directed by the order under appeal that the writ petitioner would be entitled to his seniority as per his position in the combined merit-list and notional benefits with effect from the date the person just above him had joined but he would not be entitled to arrears of salary. 3. On behalf of the appellants, it has been submitted that there is no dispute on facts that writ petitioner occupied a position at Serial No. 104 in the panel or waiting-list which finally expired on 31.3.1998 and out of said panel/waiting- list persons only up to Serial No. 90 were offered appointment. It has further been submitted that a person like the writ petitioner occupying a position in the waiting- list has no right of appointment unless persons below him are offered appointment and he is ignored without any good reasons. In support of this proposition a reliance has been placed in the case of Shankarsan Dash V/s. Union of India reported in (1991)3 SCC 47 . 4. A perusal of the judgment and order under appeal discloses that direction to appoint the writ petitioner has been issued mainly on the ground that in the earlier round of litigation the stand of the Unit Trust of India (UTI) was that there were 429 posts available for direct recruitment and no encrpachment would be made into those posts by recruiting promotees. In the earlier round of litigation the UTI accepted that direct recruitment quota will not be diverted and case of the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law on the basis of the panel till 31.3.1998 against the direct recruitment quota in respect of posts in the Unit Trust of India and its Associate Offices. 5. In the earlier round of litigation the UTI accepted that direct recruitment quota will not be diverted and case of the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law on the basis of the panel till 31.3.1998 against the direct recruitment quota in respect of posts in the Unit Trust of India and its Associate Offices. 5. The writ court treated the same as an undertaking by the Unit Trust of India to fill up 429 posts or at least to consider case of the writ petitioner against those posts. The writ court was not satisfied with the explanation/decision of the Unit Trust of India contained in Annexure-9 that the posts in the Associates of UTI which were mentioned in the said advertisement of May 1993 were subsequently not taken into account because the requirement of the personnel in Associates in terms of the qualification, experience and other service conditions were found to be different. It is the stand of the UTI that for the aforesaid reason, the posts which were available in the Associates were not considered in pursuance of the advertisement of May 1993 and have not been filled up from amongst any candidate whose names appeared in the panel. 6. There is no right of appointment in the writ petitioner on account of his being placed in the panel/waiting- list and his case can benefit only if it is held that the reason indicated by the Unit Trust of India for not making appointment against posts in the Associates are perverse and arbitrary so as to violate Article 14 of the Constitution. On a close examination of the reasons indicated in Annexure-9, it is found that the stand of the Unit Trust of India in the said decision cannot be held to be arbitrary or perverse. 7. The aforesaid finding that the decision contained in Annexure-9 is not arbitrary fully meets the submission made on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioner that his case was not considered in accordance with the Advertisement. 8. In that view of the matter, no mandamus can be issued directing the Unit Trust of India to fill up the posts in the Associates with persons like the writ petitioner who were in the panel or waiting-list which expired on 31.3.1998. 9. In view of findings and discussions, the appeal is allowed. 8. In that view of the matter, no mandamus can be issued directing the Unit Trust of India to fill up the posts in the Associates with persons like the writ petitioner who were in the panel or waiting-list which expired on 31.3.1998. 9. In view of findings and discussions, the appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed.