1. Petitioners 1 & 2 are two students of SDA School Sadanandapuram, Kottarakkara and are appearing for the SSLC examination of March 2008, conducted by Government of Kerala, which commenced on 12.03.08. According to them, they belong to the Seventh Day Adventist denomination; a world wide Protestant Christian denomination and are therefore entitled to fundamental right under Art 25(1) of the Constitution to freely profess, practise and propagate that religion. According to them, in terms of the core faith of the members of that denomination, they have to abstain from any activity from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturdays and therefore it will be impermissible for them, in the context of their religion, to appear for the examination scheduled tomorrow, i.e., 15.03.2008. They filed this writ Petition on 13.2008, relying on Ext. P2 Government order dt. 21.12,1961 by which the Government had decided that if there are any candidates belonging to Jews Or Seventh Day Adventist denomination to appear for the examination, special arrangements will be made for them, for conducting the examination after 6 p.m.

2. When this matter came up for admission on the afternoon of 13.08, in the wake of Ext. P2, the learned Government Pleader was requested to obtain instructions. He states today that Ext.P2 has since been withdrawn and the timetable was set sufficiently early in terms of R. 11(2) in Chap.VIII of the Kerala Education Rules. He accordingly stated that the petitioners could have no claim as is projected by them.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in Bijoe Emmanuel Vs. State of Kerala (1986 KLT 1037 (SC) AIR 1987 SC 748) and Bramchari Sidheswar Shai Vs. State of West Bengal (AIR 1995 SC 2089), dilating in detail on the scope of the term in Art.21(1) of the Constitution, contended that the abstinence of the members of the denomination in question from any activity during the day time on Saturdays, being intricately connected and deep rooted in the faith and belief of the members of that denomination, no law made by the State can impinge on the freedom guaranteed by Art.25(1) except to the extent of the power to legislate on the ground of public order, morality and health. He accordingly argued that the students belonging to the denomination of the petitioners are entitled to have the examination scheduled in such a manner by which they would not be compelled to write the examination between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Saturdays since such participation in examination would result in the petitioners injuring their religious beliefs: Ultimately he pointed out that Ext. P2 was held in the field from 1961 and the benefit should be permitted to run during the present academic year also, though the Government may be at liberty to withdraw a Government Order.

4. Thelearned Government Pleader argued that no distinction on the basis of caste, creed, colour or religion has been made at any point of time and any concept referable to Ext.P2 Government Order is no more adhered to by State Government which conducts different examinations. He also pointed out that as a matter of fact, the plus two examinations for the current year also were held 9n Saturdays. As stated by him, even the Central Board of Secondary Education commenced its board examinations this year on Saturday.

5. Art.25(1) has to be read and appreciated in the context of the various limbs of Art.25. An examination of that Article would show that Art.25(1) and Clause (a) of Art.25(2) are interconnected. Art.25(1), as already noticed, guarantees to all persons equality in the matter of entitlement to freedom of conscience and the right to profess practice and propagation of religion. Art.25(2) (a) provides that nothing in Art.25 shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent State from making any law regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity, which may be associated with religiou