'16. It is trite that the law declared by the supreme court is binding throughout the country under Article t4L of the constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in lJma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of L9g4 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L994, 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 appointmLnts- to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time absorption /regularization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directioni 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 L994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi,s case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the states where state enactments banning regularization/absorption exist. Therefore. Act 2 of 1994 1OO and G.O. Ms. No.212. dated 22.4.1994, do not whittle down the width and the iudgment in Manjula Bashini s case (supra), does not lower the trajectorv of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Para 53 of its judgment in Uma Deyf,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, to denv reoularization to the oetitioners. who have, admittedly, satisfied the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Deyi's case (supra).
