Regularisation requires sanctioned posts, while a defective adverse notice alone will not justify reinstatement and consequential benefits.

Regularisation could not be directed without a finding that sanctioned posts existed, and the State's assertion that no such posts were available remained unanswered; the regularisation direction was therefore unsustainable and set aside. A stigmatic notification issued without prior show-cause notice was procedurally infirm, but that defect alone did not justify reinstatement with consequential benefits where allegations of organised violence were not displaced. The Tribunal's grant of reinstatement was accordingly not justified, the order was set aside, and the claim petitions were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondents could be directed to be regularised and continued in service in the absence of a finding that sanctioned posts existed for their appointment. (ii) Whether the impugned notification, said to be stigmatic and issued without a prior show-cause notice, justified the grant of reinstatement and consequential benefits.

Issue (i): Whether the respondents could be directed to be regularised and continued in service in the absence of a finding that sanctioned posts existed for their appointment.

Analysis: The State had specifically asserted that no sanctioned post was available for regularisation. The Tribunal did not record any finding that this assertion was incorrect or that sanctioned posts of Tabulators existed. In the absence of such a finding, a direction to regularise the respondents could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The direction for regularisation was unsustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned notification, said to be stigmatic and issued without a prior show-cause notice, justified the grant of reinstatement and consequential benefits.

Analysis: Although the notification contained adverse observations and the absence of notice was a procedural infirmity, the relief granted by the Tribunal went beyond what was warranted. The Tribunal had also not displaced the allegations of organised violence, and in those circumstances it ought not to have granted reinstatement with consequential benefits.

Conclusion: The grant of reinstatement and consequential benefits was not justified.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the respondents' claim petitions were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A direction for regularisation cannot be sustained without a finding that sanctioned posts exist, and procedural infirmity in an adverse notice does not by itself warrant reinstatement and consequential benefits where the underlying allegations remain uncontroverted.

---