JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application petitioner seeks a direction commanding the respondents particularly respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to take up the matter of appointment on compassionate ground. 2. Petitioners husband was a teacher in the Regional Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur. The husband of the petitioner died in harness on 17.5.2003. After his death petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. It is contended by the petitioner that after the death of her husband she is struggling for her bread and butter. 3. Respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that there is a complete ban on fresh recruitment and therefore, no appointment either regular or compassionate can be made. In the supplementary counter affidavit it is stated that the Regional Institute of Technology has been taken over by the Central Government and numerous changes have been introduced including complete ban on any fresh appointment. It is contended that the Ministry of Human Resources, Government of India has also issued instructions not to carry out any fresh recruitment. Denying the averments made by the petitioner, it is stated that because of acute shortage of qualified technical personnel in certain key post, the Board of Governors of NIT, Jamshedpur took a decision to fill up the post by appointing duly qualified person for fixed period. 4. I have heard Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Sheela Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. It is well settled that notwithstanding the provision of compassionate appointment on the Recruitment Rules if there is a total ban on fresh appointment then Court cannot insist for making compassionate appointment unless it is found that the action of the employer is mala fide or discriminatory. 6. Mr. Mehta in course of argument submitted that in similar circumstances this Court issued direction upon the respondents for compassionate appointment in the case of Prabhat Kumar v. National Institute of Technology in W.P.S. No. 3319 of 2003. The fact of that case is totally different from the instant case. In that case the deceased employee died in 1986 and his case for compassionate appointment was highly recommended with 32 other candidates but for the reason best known to the respondents all those candidates were appointed on compassionate ground ignoring the case of the petitioner. The fact of that case is totally different from the instant case. In that case the deceased employee died in 1986 and his case for compassionate appointment was highly recommended with 32 other candidates but for the reason best known to the respondents all those candidates were appointed on compassionate ground ignoring the case of the petitioner. In that context, this Court held that the action of the respondents was mala fide and issued appropriate direction to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 7. In the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. A. Radhika Thirumalai, AIR 1997 SC 123 and in the case of Dhanna Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 126 , this Court cannot issue a mandamus directing the respondents to make appointment on compassionate ground despite the total ban on fresh recruitment. 8. For the aforesaid reason, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.