JUDGMENT - A.D. MANE, J.:---Heard Shri Potbhare, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.L. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 insurance company. 2. Rule. On request of learned Counsel for the respective parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioner's father was working in the office of the respondent No. 3. He expired on 14-3-1989. After his death his widow applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 20-11-1989. She was however, informed that her claim cannot be granted. Thereafter, present petitioner, her son, applied for appointment on the compassionate ground in class IV cadre. On scrutiny of his application, the respondent No. 3 found that the petitioner's elder brother is in employment and therefore, his application was rejected on the ground that when his elder brother was gainfully employed, his claim cannot be considered. 4. Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel or the respondent No. 3 invites our attention to the decision in case of (Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mrs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar)1, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 2148 in support of his submission that in identical case, the Apex Court observed that the Court cannot direct appointments to be made contrary to statutory provisions. In this case, it is submitted that Life Insurance Corporation Recruitment (of class III and class IV staff) Instructions, 1979 provides for the appointment of staff on compassionate ground upon demise of a member of the staff of the Corporation while in service. Clause 4 of the same provides that where any member of the family is employed, no appointment may be made on compassionate grounds. According to Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel, therefore, the petitioner in this case also is not entitled for any appointment on compassionate ground, because his elder brother is gainfully employed. 5. In our opinion, arguments of Shri Kulkarni are well supported by the aforesaid decision. There is no quarrel that the petitioner's elder brother is gainfully employed in the Police Department. The Apex Court has clearly laid down that the Court cannot direct the appointment to be made contrary to the statutory provisions. 6. In that view of the matter, it is not possible to consider the request of the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly rejected. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. *****