Ramakrishna Mission College Cannot Deny Appointment Merely Because Candidate Expressed Views On Social Media Inconsistent With Its Philosophy: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court held that Ramakrishna Mission Residential College cannot refuse to appointment merely because the candidate had expressed certain views on social media and adheres to a different ideology, faith, or belief.

The issue before the High Court was once a recommendation was made, can the College decline to issue an appointment letter in favour of the candidate so recommended?

The Bench of Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee observed, “In that view, 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, which is firmly anchored in its foundational principles.”

Advocate Raghunath Chakraborty represented the Petitioner, while Advocates Malay Kumar Singh, Subhrangsu Panda, Deepan Kumar Sarkar and S. Sen represented the Respondents

Case Brief

The West Bengal College Service Commission initiated a recruitment process and the Petitioner submitted his candidature for the post of Assistant Professor. In the merit-based counselling, the Petitioner chose the Ramkrishna Mission Residential College. However, the College declined to issue the letter of appointment on the ground that the recommendation of the Commission was not binding upon it.

The College contended that it was an autonomous body and functions as a branch centre of the Ramkrishna Mission, which is a society within the meaning of the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. Further, it was submitted that due to Petitioner’s strong opinions on religion and society, expressed through hatred and obscene remarks directed against another religion or ideology, the Governing Body resolved not to accept the recommendation of the Commission, as it was inconsistent with the fundamental ideals, philosophy and guiding principles of the Ramakrishna Mission.

The College also contended that the recommendation of the Commission was not binding upon it, since the College was an autonomous body.

While the Petitioner submitted that since he signed a declaration which effectively forfeited his right to be considered for appointment in any other College, he has been deprived of his opportunity of employment. He also contended that India being a secular country, the government-funded institutions are expected to uphold secular principles.

Court’s Observation

The issue before the High Court was whether a College Authority can lawfully refuse to accept the recommendation of the West Bengal College Service Commission.

The Court noted that it was held by the Supreme Court that citizens of India who profess, practise, or propagate the religious doctrines and teachings of Sri Ramakrishna and have become his followers cannot claim to constitute a minority. The Court also took into account that the College was a government-aided College.

The Court said, “Consequently, they are not entitled to invoke the fundamental right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, and the educational institutions established by them cannot be regarded as minority institutions entitled to any special status since the establishment of educational institutions is not an essential matter of their religion.”

With regard to the question whether a College can refuse to accept the recommendation of the Commission, the High Court observed that the provisions of the West Bengal College Service Commission Act, 1978 does not make it mandatory for a College to appoint a candidate recommended by the Commission for appointment. Thus, the College was not bound to accept the recommendation of the Commission and, for valid reasons, may request the Commission to make a fresh recommendation.

However, with regard to the decision of Ramakrishna Mission refusing to appoint the Petitioner on the ground that his strong views on religion and society, the High Court noted that neither the College, nor any authority, person, or the State had lodged any complaint against the Petitioner in any forum alleging that he made obscene or disparaging remarks that could entail penal consequences.

“The conflict between the petitioner and the College is essentially a valuebased conflict. Essentially, differing viewpoints reflect underlying conflicts of values, rooted in fundamental convictions about how the world should be or how a particular idea ought to be perceived…These conflicts are, however, natural, and it is equally true that every conflict is born with the potential for resolution”, the Court said.

The Court was of the opinion that there was no justification in the decision of the Governing Body of the College to refuse appointment to Petitioner merely because the petitioner had expressed certain views on social media and adheres to a different ideology, faith, or belief.

Further, the Court said that the College cannot claim to be a minority educational institution, nor can it claim any special status. It also cannot impose a condition on the Commission that recommendations for any post in the College be limited only to individuals who are followers of the ideology of the Ramakrishna Mission or who do not bear any different ideology.

Accordingly, the High Court directed the College to issue the letter of appointment in favour of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor in English at the College.

Cause Title: Tamal Dasgupta V. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Raghunath Chakraborty, Amrita De and Mohana Das

Respondents: Advocates Malay Kumar Singh and Neelam Si for State, Advocates Subhrangsu Panda, Ina Bhattacharya and Mithu Singha Mahapatra for Respondent 2, Advocates Deepan Kumar Sarkar and Arti Bhat for Respondent 3, Advocates S. Sen, Prithwish Roychowdhury and Deepti Priya for Respondent 4.

Click here to read/download Judgment