CWP No.12026 of 2008 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 07.01.2009 Krishan Lal … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents Present: Mr.SK Arora, Advocate,for the petitioner. Mr.BS Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case. The petitioner was serving with the respondent-State in the Department of Education as Math Master. Later on, he was promoted as Lecturer in Commerce in the year 1994. He retired on 31.05.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. It appears that due to paucity of teaching staff, the State Government issued an Ordinance No.2 of 2006 dated 23.05.2006 to re-employ the teachers for completion of the academic session even after retirement except to a teacher, who is unwilling to continue in service on re-employment. The claim of the petitioner is that he never refused to continue in service for re-employment. However, the respondents vide the impugned order dated 23.05.2008, Annexure P-6, have rejected the claim of the petitioner for re-employment on the ground that there is no student of Commerce and, thus, the service of the petitioner is not required after retirement for re-employment. The petitioner has challenged the order CWP No.12026 of 2008 -2- aforesaid. He is seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus for his re- employment in service. Though the respondent-State has issued an ordinance and ordered reemployment of the various teachers except who are unwilling for re-employment, but the fact remains that re-employment cannot be given to the petitioner as it was need based. Since the petitioner was a teacher of Commerce and there were no students of Commerce, the respondents have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for re-employment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in similar circumstances, another teacher, namely, Labh Singh, who was Teacher of Biology, was re-employed, though there was no student of Biology to be taught by the said Teacher. Hence, on the ground of parity and equality, learned counsel has impressed upon this Court to issue a writ of mandamus. It is settled law that Article 14 of the Constitution of India has a positive concept. No mandamus can be issued to repeat a wrong if one wrong has already been committed. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit on that basis. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 07.01.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO