JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order Ex.3 and submitted that same may not be given effect to qua petitioner and further prayed that petitioner should not be transferred out of Jodhpur Division on the post of security guard. He also submitted that Ex.2 petitioner has been designated as security guard that may be declared illegal. 2. Petitioner was appointed as work-charge helper in the Rajasthan State Electricity Board at Pali on 5th May, 1979. He continued on this post and a Screening Committee was appointed by the respondents to examine the matter of regularising the daily rated workmen who have completed 2 years' continuous service on 31st March, 1982. This Committee considered all the cases of Jodhpur Division who had put in 2 years' continuous service for their regularisation. The Committee by its order dated 17th November, 1983 regularised the services of 326 employees and in that petitioner's service was also regularised but against his name he was designated as security guard. In pursuance of this, order was passed appointing him as security guard and he as given a pay scale No. 1, he was also paid his arrears. He was also asked to give in writing that he can be posted in any part of Rajasthan. Ex.p.2 is an undertaking given by the petitioner that in the event of his appointment as a helper grade II he can be posted in any part of Rajasthan. Now the petitioner has challenged by this writ petition the order Exs. 2 and 3. By Ex.3 dated 20th May, 1986 the petitioner guard at Kajewar Jawahar Sagar Dam Power Station Jawaharnagar R.S.E.B. Kota. This order is being sought to be challenged by the petitioner that he never opted for being regularised on the post of security guard. The contention of the petitioner is that he is a workman and was working as work-charge on technical post. He has given undertaking that if he is regularised on the post of helper grade II, he will not claim to be posted in the Jodhpur division as is apparent from Ex.R2. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner being sought to be transferred from technical post to non-technical post and this kind of transfer is not permitted. In support of his contention, learned counsel has invited my attention to 1972 WLN Vol. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner being sought to be transferred from technical post to non-technical post and this kind of transfer is not permitted. In support of his contention, learned counsel has invited my attention to 1972 WLN Vol. V. 133 (State of Rajasthan v. Kailash Chandra Jain and others). Thus learned counsel submitted that if he is not appointed as security guard which is a non-technical post then he cannot be posted at Kota. He has also submitted that designating the petitioner vide Ex.2 as security guard should also be declared illegal. 3. A return has been filed by the respondents and respondents have submitted that the petitioner has given in writing that he is prepared to go in any part of Rajasthan and he will not claim that he should be posted in Jodhpur division. Mr. Kala, learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that in Ex. 2 only 30 persons along with the petitioner were recruited as security guard and rest were not even selected for the helper grade II. Learned counsel submitted that if he was not willing to go as a security guard, he should have given in writing and in that case his services would not have been regularised at all. 4. I have heard learned counsel and perused the record. 5. So far as the first contention of Mr. Kala learned counsel for R.S.E.B. is concerned that since the petitioner has given in writing that he is willing to be posted in any part of Rajasthan in the event of his being regularised appears to be justified and no relief for that purpose can be given to the petitioner. 6. Now the next question is regarding transfer of the petitioner from industrial post of non-industrial post. A perusal of Ex.2 clearly shows that all the candidates mentioned in that list were regularised as they have put in 2 years' of service as work-charge in the Jodhpur division. Petitioner was working on technical post of the helper. But he was selected for the post of the security guard. No choice was asked from the petitioner that whether he is willing to be regularised on the post of security guard or not. Petitioner was working on technical post of the helper. But he was selected for the post of the security guard. No choice was asked from the petitioner that whether he is willing to be regularised on the post of security guard or not. In fact a Committee was constituted for the purpose of regularising the persons who have put in 2 years' of service in the R.S.E.B. and no regular cadre for the security guard was anywhere mentioned or created for the absorption of such technical persons. Petitioner has submitted that he was holding the post of a helper which was technical post and no choice was asked from him that whether he will opt for being regularised for the post of security guard or not. Ex.R.2 which is an undertaking given by the petitioner clearly states that in the event of selection by the Screening Committee for being regularised on the post of helper grade II he is liable to be posted in any part of Rajasthan and he will not claim his posting in Jodhpur division. This document clearly shows that petitioner was asked to give an undertaking that whether he is agreeable for being regularised on the post of helper grade II or not. In the return also, it has been pointed out that the Screening Committee while screening all the eligible persons found about 30 persons who were below 35 years of age and in good physique is a suitable for the post of security guard. This clearly shows that the petitioner was not asked whether he would like for screening for the post of security guard or not. In fact the return also shows that no choice was asked from the petitioner that whether he will join the post of security guard in the event of his selection or not. The Screening Committee thought that looking to the age and physique of petitioner will be suitable for the post of security guard. The pay scale of the security guard and helper grade II appears to be same. However, petitioner cannot be forced to accept assignment against his wishes from a technical to non-technical. In State of Rajasthan v. Kailash Chandra Jain and others, 1972 WLN Vol. V. 133, the Division Bench of this Court has taken the view that workman without his consent cannot be asked to go to a non-workman post. However, petitioner cannot be forced to accept assignment against his wishes from a technical to non-technical. In State of Rajasthan v. Kailash Chandra Jain and others, 1972 WLN Vol. V. 133, the Division Bench of this Court has taken the view that workman without his consent cannot be asked to go to a non-workman post. In this view of the matter, I think, the contention of the petitioner appears to be justified that no choice was asked from the petitioner whether he is willing to go to non-workman post or not. Therefore, against his wishes, he cannot be posted for the post of security guard simply because he was below 35 years of age and good in physique. 7. In the result, I allow the writ petition in part and direct the respondents that petitioner cannot be sent against his wishes to the post of security guard. The respondents may reconsider his case for the post of the helper grade II if he is found suitable, then proper orders in accordance with law may be passed. So far as posting part is concerned no relief can be given to him as he himself has given in writing that he is prepared to go and serve in any part of Rajasthan. As such the petitioner cannot now turn back and claim that he can be posted in Jodhpur division only. 8. The result is that the writ petition is allowed in part as indicated above.Petition allowed partly. *******