"16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.7994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to one-time public posts, consciously ordered for a bsorption/regula rization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, whilegiving directionsin Para No.53 of thejudgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning regu larization/a bsorption exist. 100 n G.O. Ms. No.212 ,, i IOO1I d^ n^i whf+la wn i he width a n / l'lia aniula Bashini's case(sup ra ), does not lower the traiectorv of the directions issued bv the in Para 53 of its iudqment in Uma Devi's se su ra</sup> If ic thar e n,r0 rrarrrriccihla fnr. f h resoondents to take shetter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. N 2 2 2.4.L994 en re ulariza the Detitioners, who have admittedlv, satisfied the criteria !a wn in Para No.53 of the iud oment in Uma Devi's case(suora).
