( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred against a judgment of Mr. Justice Mehrotra by which he dismissed a petition of the appellant filed under Article 223 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) THE appellant is an Engineer employed under the State of Uttar Pradesh in the Public Works department He claims to be a Hindu by religion. He was married to respondent No. 3 in 1934. A daughter was bom of the marriage. Thereafter the respondent No. 3 began to miscarry. No son was ever born to her and it has been found that on medical grounds the respondent No. 3 was incapable of bearing a son. Both the appellant and his father believe that according to Hindu Dharm Shastras salvation was not possible without a son and in the absence of a male child in the family a number of religious obligations would remain unfulfilled. The appellant, therefore, decided to marry a second wife in the hope that he will be able to get a son by her. The respondent No. 3 at first consented to the proposal but then changed her mind. At her instance, relying on Rule 27 of the Government Servants Conduct Rules the State government directed the appellant not to marry a second wife without obtaining its permission. Both the appellant and his father then submitted applications to the State Government requesting it to permit the appellant to many a second wife. By that time the Hindu Marriage Act had come into fores which prohibited a second marriage during the life time of the first wife. The permission sought for by the appellant was, therefore, refused. By the writ petition which has given rise to this appeal the appellant challenged the validity of Rule 27 of the Government servants Conduct Rules as well as the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act which prohibited bigamy on the ground that they infringed the freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 25 of the constitution. He prayed that the orders of the State Government refusing permission for his second marriage be quashed and that a direction be issued that his application should be decided in accordance with the personal law laid down in Dharm Shastras.

( 3 ) THE petition was opposed on the grounds that the impugned provisions were perfectly valid, that the Government Servants Conduct Rules constituted the conditions of the appellants service and as long as he was in the service of the State he was bound to obey the rules and that no general declaration could be granted about the invalidity of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage act.

( 4 ) THE learned Judge who heard the petition was not impressed by the last two contentions but accepted the first mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that the impugned provisions were saved by clause (2) (b) of Article 25 of the Constitution and secondly, that it could not be said that it was an obligatory or integral part of the Hindu religion to many a second wife in the life time of the first if the latter had no male child. The Hindu religion, the learned Judge pointed out, permitted the adoption of a son and an adopted son was for all purposes as good as a natural born son. The petition filed by the appellant was, therefore, rejected.

( 5 ) IN appeal the learned counsel for the appellant assailed both the grounds which had prevailed with the learned Judge. After hearing him in respect of the first ground, however, we did not find it necessary to hear him on the second ground. Learned counsel failed to satisfy us that the first ground was untenable or that it was not enough to justify the rejection of the petition.

( 6 ) ARTICLE 25 of the Constitution reads as fol-lows:" 25. (1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propogate religion. (2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law - ( a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or