AIDAM SINGH Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(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 Nov., 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. V. 133 (State of Rajasthan Vs. 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.