The Calcutta High Court has upheld a decision by the Ramakrishna Mission Residential College in Narendrapur to reject an assistant professor candidate recommended by the state commission, citing his social media posts against the institution and its monks.
A division bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md Shabbar Rashidi ruled that while individuals have a constitutional right to profess their religion, this right does not extend to hurting the faith or religious sentiments of others. The July 1 order set aside a 2025 decision by a single-judge bench that had previously directed the college to hire the candidate.
Background of the Dispute
The case originated in 2023 when the West Bengal College Service Commission recommended the candidate for appointment as an assistant professor of English. However, the college’s governing body refused to accept the recommendation after reviewing the candidate’s public Facebook posts, which addressed religion and society.
Legal counsel representing the college argued that the posts contained demeaning and insulting remarks targeting another religion, as well as the core ideology of the Ramakrishna Mission and its monks. The governing body concluded that hiring the candidate would permanently damage the academic environment of the institution.
The candidate subsequently challenged the refusal in court, where a single-judge bench ruled in his favor and ordered the college to issue an appointment letter. The college then appealed that ruling to the division bench.
Court Rules on Religious Rights and Speech
In its ruling, the division bench allowed the college’s appeal and dismissed the candidate’s cross-objections. The court noted that candidates do not possess an absolute right to an appointment and that the college acted on reasonable grounds. According to the bench, an educational institution has the right to refuse a recommendation provided its decision is made in good faith, is free of arbitrariness, and serves the best interest of the institution.
The judges observed that the candidate’s Facebook posts had the potential to hurt the religious sentiments of others. They found no evidence on record to suggest that the college’s decision was malicious or contrary to its institutional interests.
Furthermore, the bench rejected the candidate’s argument that the hiring refusal infringed upon his fundamental rights to free speech and religious practice. The court pointed out that the college had neither stopped the candidate from expressing his views nor restricted his religious practices. The judges added that they did not need to determine whether the social media posts were obscene or seditious, as those questions were not relevant to evaluating the college’s administrative decision.
