'16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Coui-t 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. lvls. No.212, dated 22.4.t994, 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 bsorptio n/reg u la rization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. it has given directions rn this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of IndiaThe 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 22.4.7994, 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 reg u la rization/a bsorptio n exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 1OO and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated )) 4 lqq4 .1.r n.rt r rhitf la dnrrun t h wl.lt h a n.lt h d men in Man ula Bashini's case s r es lower the traiectorv of the directions issued bv the SuDreme Court in Para 53 of its iudqmentjn lllna Deuj:s case( sUD ra ) It is therefore not ncrm isqi hle for thc resoondents to take shelter under Act 2 ot 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4,L994, to denv reqularization to t dl satisfied the criteria laid down i nPa ra No.53 of th m n m Devi's case(suDra).
