Authority: High Court at Calcutta

Order Date: July 1, 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: The Secretary, Ramkrishna Mission Residential College (Autonomous), Narendrapur & Ors. (appellants) filed MAT 1604 of 2025; Tamal Dasgupta (writ petitioner) filed cross‑objection COT 163 of 2025.
  • Background: A single judge’s judgment and order dated September 4, 2025 (WPA 6005 of 2024) directed the college to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Assistant Professor in English and to allow him to join within four weeks.
  • College’s Position: The college, run by Ramkrishna Mission, argued that the petitioner’s numerous social‑media posts expressed strong, derogatory, and obscene views against Ramkrishna Mission, its monks, and other religions, which were anti‑ethical to the Mission’s philosophy. The governing body unanimously concluded that appointing him would permanently vitiate the college atmosphere and dilute the Mission’s principles. The college exercised its right of refusal under the West Bengal College Service Commission Act, 2012, citing The Governing Body of Bankim Sardar College & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal precedent.
  • Petitioner's Position: The petitioner contended he possessed the requisite qualifications, had been fairly selected by the West Bengal College Service Commission, and that his social‑media posts were personal opinions protected by Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution. He argued that the college, not being a minority institution, had no right to reject the Commission’s recommendation and that the refusal violated his freedom of speech and religion.
  • Arguments from West Bengal College Service Commission: The Commission asserted that its recommendation was made in accordance with the Act, 2012 and the relevant regulations, and that refusal is permissible only on grounds of ineligibility, which did not apply to the petitioner.
  • Judicial Reasoning: The Court examined Sections 7, 8, 9 of the repealed 1978 Act and the current 2012 Act, noting that the 2012 Act allows colleges to reject recommendations provided the refusal is bona‑fide, free from arbitrariness, and in the institution’s best interest. The Court referenced the coordinate bench decision in The Governing Body of Bankim Sardar College & Anr. which affirmed the college’s discretion. It held that the petitioner’s Facebook posts, while not necessarily obscene or seditious, were inimical to the institution’s ethos and thus constituted a plausible ground for refusal. The Court emphasized that the right to free speech does not permit hurting the religious sentiments of others.
  • The Court also clarified that a contract of employment must be entered into voluntarily under the Contract Act, 1872, and cannot be specifically enforced under the Specific Relief Act, 1943, reinforcing the college’s right to decline the appointment.

Final Outcome

  • The impugned judgment and order dated September 4, 2025 are set aside.
  • MAT 1604 of 2025 (appeal) and COT 163 of 2025 (cross‑objection) are disposed of without any order as to costs.

Topics: Appointment Law, Higher Education