"16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 ofthe Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the timethe judgment in lJma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, were in existence. The Supreme Court,while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors bygiving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to one-time public posts, consciously ordered for absorption/reg ula rization of those, who wereworking for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and alsoUnion ofIndia. The Supreme Court ispresumed to be conscious ofvarious State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and'executiveorders suchas G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994,while giving directionsin Para No.53 of thejudgment in UmaDevi's case (supra).But still, it has not made any exception infavour of theStates where State enactments banningregu la rization/absorptionexist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 100 and G.O. Ms.No.212, dated 22.4.1994, do not whittle down the width and thejudgmentin Manjula Bashini's case (supra), does not lower the trajectoryof the directions issued by the Supreme Court inPara53 ofits judgment in Llma Devi's case (supra). It is, therefore, not permissible for the respondents to take shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, todeny regularization to the petitioners, who have, admittedly, satisfied the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of thejudgment in Uma Devi's case (supra).
