'16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Courtis binding throughout the country under Article 141 ofthe Constitution of India- It is noteworthy that by thetime the judgment in IJma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of L994 and G.O. Ms, No.212, dated 22.4-1994, were in existence. The Supreme Court,while denouncing the practice of regularization andabsorptionof f persons, who entered service through back doors bygivinga go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointmentsto one-time public posts, consciously ordered for a bso rptio n/reg u la riza tion of those,who were working fora period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments andalso Union of india. The Supreme Court is presumed to be consciousof various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 andexecutiveorders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L994,while giving directions in Para No.53 of thejudgment in Uma Devi'scase (supra).But still, it has not made any exception infavour ot the States where State enactments banningreg ula rlzation/a bsorptionexist. Therefore, Act 2 0f 1994 100 and G.O.Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L994 do not whittle down the width andthe ud in Man ula Ba ini's ca u ra doe lower t het ra IE cto ofthed tre tons issued bw fhe Su ore e Court in Para 53 of its iudoment inUma Devi's ase sunrr </sup> T+ ic +h refo t sible resoonden ts to take shelter underAct 2 of and G.O. Ms. No.212. dated 22.4,L9 94. todenv reqularization to the o itioners. wh have. admittedlv.satisfied the rt idd wn in Par .53 of h ud m nt in Devi s case(supra).
