Judgment 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 13.3.2002 passed in CWJC No. 2949 of 2002 by which the writ court had not interfered with the decisions of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee dated 14.7.2000 and 18.9.2001 rejecting the claim of the petitioner-appellant as two of his eider brothers were gainfully employed. 2. The contention of the petitioner-appellant is two fold : firstly, that his application for compassionate appointment could not have been rejected only on the ground that his two eider brothers were employed and secondly, it was also required to be seen as to whether the widow and other family members could be taken care of after the demise of his father in harness. It has clearly been contended that the two elder brothers had filed affidavits that they are separate from their mother and younger brother, as such, their earning was not helpful in supporting the family. 3. The learned writ court while going through the two affidavits sworn by the two elder brothers dated 10.4.2000 and 11.4.2000 found that the affidavits were the carbon copy of each other and were brought on the record at the instance of the petitioner-appellant. It has further considered that the petitioner-appellant did not have any vested right for compassionate appointment. 4. As the family of the deceased was possessed of other means of livelihood, including employment of one or more members of the family, it cannot be said that the family cannot sustain itself without compassionate appointment of the writ petitioner. The learned writ court relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal V/s. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 , in this regard. 5. We do not find any error in the aforesaid order requiring interference by this court. 6. Dismissed.