"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.2l2, dated 22.4.7994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularizatidn 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.t994, while giving directions in 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 reg u la rization/a bsorption exist. Therefore, AcL2 of 1994 1OO and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L994, do not whiftle down the width and the iudoment in ltlaniula Easrrini's case(suora), does not lower the traiectorv of the directions issued bv the Suoreme Court in Para 53 of its iudoment in Uma Devi's case(suoral. It is. therefore- naltnc rmtcsi hlc t(l rth e resDondentslolake shelter under Act 2 ol 1994 and G.O. Ms. No212, dated 22.4.1994, to denv reqularization to tha natitinnarc- rarhn hawa .a.l rrr itta.l lr, <aficficd tha criteria Iaid down in Para No.53 of the iudqment in Uma Devi's case (suoral.
