The Calcutta High Court, in a significant judgment on September 2, 2025, ruled that a government-aided autonomous college cannot lawfully refuse to appoint a candidate recommended by the West Bengal College Service Commission solely on the grounds that the candidate’s personal views, expressed on social media, are antithetical to the institution’s philosophy.
Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee held that the refusal by Ramkrishna Mission Residential College (Autonomous), Narendrapur, to issue an appointment letter to Dr. Tamal Dasgupta was not bona fide or in the institution’s best interest. The court directed the college to appoint Dr. Dasgupta as an Assistant Professor in English within four weeks.
Case Background
The petitioner, Dr. Tamal Dasgupta, an Assistant Professor at a Delhi University college, was recommended for the post by the West Bengal College Service Commission (the Commission) following a selection process initiated in 2020. After successfully clearing the interview, Dr. Dasgupta participated in merit-based counselling on October 3, 2023, and chose the Ramkrishna Mission Residential College. The Commission issued a formal recommendation letter on December 29, 2023.
However, the college declined to issue an appointment letter. The petitioner stated he had signed a declaration forfeiting his claim to appointment in any other college and had subsequently sold his flat in Delhi to relocate. The college’s refusal, he claimed, left him “stranded in a no man’s land.”
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Submissions: Represented by Advocate Raghunath Chakraborty, Dr. Dasgupta argued that the West Bengal College Service Commission Act, 2012, mandates that appointments “shall be made solely on the recommendation of the Commission.” He contended that the college’s action violated the principles of natural justice, as the alleged social media posts forming the basis of the rejection were never disclosed to him. Mr. Chakraborty asserted that as a government-aided institution, the college could not claim special status under Articles 26(a) or 30(1) of the Constitution and that “merit, qualifications, and professional competence are the criteria to be assessed for appointment.”
College’s Defence: The college, represented by Advocate Deepan Kumar Sarkar, contended that it is an autonomous body and an integral part of the Ramakrishna Mission. It argued that a recommendation from the Commission is not legally binding and the final decision to appoint rests with the college’s Governing Body.
The college stated its Governing Body reviewed Dr. Dasgupta’s social media posts and “unanimously formed the view that the petitioner’s strong opinions on religion and society, expressed through hatred and obscene remarks directed against another religion or ideology, were wholly inconsistent with the fundamental ideals, philosophy and guiding principles of the Ramakrishna Mission.” The Governing Body also found that the petitioner had made “derogatory, obscene and disparaging remarks against the institution as well as its monks” and concluded that his appointment would “pose a risk of permanently vitiating the atmosphere of the College.”
Commission’s Stand: Advocate Subhrangsu Panda, appearing for the Commission, supported the petitioner. He affirmed that the Commission is the sole authority for selecting candidates and a college’s role is limited to issuing the appointment letter. He submitted that the 2012 Act has no provision empowering a college to refuse a recommended candidate on such grounds.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
Justice Chatterjee first established that the college, being government-aided and not a minority institution (as per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brahmachari Sidheswar Shai & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.), is bound by the statutory framework.
The court examined whether a college is bound to accept the Commission’s recommendation. Citing the Division Bench judgment in The Governing Body of Bankim Sardar College & Anr., which interpreted the near-identical provisions of the repealed 1978 Act, the court affirmed the principle that a recommendation is not mandatorily binding. However, any decision to reject a candidate “must be bona fide, free from arbitrariness, and taken in the best interest of the institution.”
The court then evaluated the validity of the college’s reasons. It noted that the alleged social media comments were not placed on record and no legal complaint had ever been filed against the petitioner. The court characterized the dispute as a “value-based conflict.”
Justice Chatterjee found the college’s fears unjustified, stating, “There can be no justification for the apprehension that the ideology of the Ramakrishna Mission… would be diminished merely because an individual has made certain comments on social media and if such individual is permitted to render his service as an Assistant Professor in the College.”
Quoting Swami Vivekananda’s writings on the universality of Vedanta, the court observed that the Mission’s principles are broad enough to be accepted by people of different faiths and ideologies. The judgment concluded: “I find no justification for the decision of the Governing Body of the College which proceeds on the premise that, merely because the petitioner had expressed certain views on social media and adheres to a different ideology, faith, or belief, his appointment would be detrimental to the ideology of the Mission.”
Final Order
Finding the college’s refusal to be arbitrary, the court disposed of the writ petition with a clear directive. It ordered the college authorities “to issue the letter of appointment in favour of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor in English at the College, and to permit him to join the said post within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” A request to stay the judgment was rejected.
