1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak

And

The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi

MAT 1604 of 2025

The Secretary, Ramkrishna Mission Residential College

(Autonomous), Narendrapur & Anr.

Vs.

Tamal Dasgupta & Ors.

With

COT 163 of 2025

Tamal Dasgupta

Vs.

The Secretary, Ramkrishna Mission Residential College

(Autonomous), Narendrapur & Ors .

For the Appellants : Mr. Deepan Kumar Sarkar, Adv.

Ms. Arti Bhattacharyya, Adv.

Ms. Samriddha Sen, Adv.

Ms. Deepti Priya, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty, Adv

Tamal Dasgupta Ms. Amrita De, Adv.

For the West Bengal

College Service Commission : Mr. Subhrangsu Panda, Adv.

Ms. Ina Bhattacharyya, Adv.

Ms. Mithu Singha Mahapatra, Adv.

Hearing Concluded on : June 15, 2026

Judgement on : July 1, 2026

2

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.: -

1. An appeal and a cross objection have been heard by us

analogously as they emanate out of the same impugned

judgment and order dated September 4, 2025 passed in WPA

6005 of 2024. A College and its Secretary have filed MAT 1604

of 2025 while the writ petitioner has filed the cross objection

being COT 163 of 2025.

2. For the sake of convenience the College and its

Secretary are referred to as the appellants while the party who

has filed the cross objection is referred to as the writ

petitioner.

3. By the impugned judgment and order, learned Single

Judge has disposed of the writ petition of the writ petitioner

by directing the appellants to issue the letter of appointment

in his favour to the post of Assistant Professor in English at

the college and to permit him to join such post within a period

of four weeks.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants has

submitted that, the appellant No. 2 is run by Ramkrishna

Mission Narendrapur which is a branch of Ramkrishna

Mission. He has contended that, both the appellant No. 2 and

Ramkrishna Mission Ashram are inalienable limbs of

3

Ramkrishna Mission. Ramkrishna Mission is a religious and

charitable non-governmental organization. He has contended

that, Ramkrishna Mission is a society registered under the

Societies Registration Act, 1860 and deemed to be registered

under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants has

submitted that, appellants notified one vacancy in respect of

Assistant Professor in English language for the appellant No.

2. West Bengal College Service Commission had undertaken a

selection process and recommended the writ petitioner for

appointment.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant s has

submitted that, the governing body of the appellant No. 2 took

up the recommendation of the West Bengal College Service

Commission in respect of writ petitioner. It had transpired in

such meeting that, the writ petitioner made a large number of

public statements and posts from time to time on social media

platforms available in the public domain, which were strong

views on religion and society. He has contended that, such

posts of the writ petitioner displayed hatred, and contained

obscene, scurrilous, demeaning and insulting remarks

4

directed at another religion and ideology and principles of

Ramkrishna Mission and its monks. Such comments were

completely anti-ethical to the fundamental ideas, ideals and

philosophy of Ramkrishna Mission. Writ petitioner had

appeared biased against Ramkrishna Mission and made

derogatory/obscene/disparaging remarks against Ramkrishna

Mission and its monks.

7. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant s has

submitted that, the members of the governing body of the

appellant No. 2 unanimously concluded that, appointment of

the writ petitioner to the college would vitiate the atmosphere

of the college permanently, diluting the principles of

Ramkrishna Mission and defeating the purpose and objective

behind running the college.

8. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant s has

submitted that, the governing body of the college therefore,

did not accept the recommendation to appoint the writ

petitioner and by a letter dated January 22, 2024

communicated the decision to the West Bengal College Service

Commission of non-acceptance.

5

9. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants has

contended that, West Bengal College Service Commission

neither responded to the letter dated January 22, 2024 nor

objected thereto.

10. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants

has contended that, the appellants have a right of refusal of

the recommendations made by the West Bengal College

Service Commission. He has relied upon 2017 (1) Cal LJ 102

(The Governing Body of Bankim Sardar College & Anr. vs.

State of West Bengal and Another) for the proposition that,

a college can refuse the recommendation of the West Bengal

College Service Commission.

11. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants has

contended that, the direction contained in the impugned

judgment and order is inimical to the rights of the appellants.

The appellants cannot be forced to enter into a contract for

employment which the impugned judgment and order has

directed.

12. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has

submitted that, the writ petitioner participated in a selection

process for the appointment to the post of Assistant Professor.

6

Writ petitioner has the requisite qualification to be appointed

to such post. West Bengal College Service Commission had

initiated a selection process where the writ petitioner had

participated. In such selection process, writ petitioner had

opted for the college run by the appellant No. 2 for his

appointment. West Bengal College Service Commission had

recommended the appointment of the writ petitioner to the

college run by the appellant No. 2.

13. Learned advocate appearing for writ petitioner has

contended that, in the event the college does not accept the

recommendation of the West Beng al College Service

Commission and grant appointment, then, the writ petitioner

will lose all other opportunities in the selection process.

14. Learned advocate appearing for writ petitioner has

contended that, the teaching capability of the writ petitioner

was not doubted by the appellants. The allegation against the

writ petitioner is of alleged posts made in the social media

platforms. He has submitted that, such posts are personal in

nature. Such posts have nothing to do with the teaching

capability of the writ petitioner.

7

15. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has

contended that, the college is not a minority institution.

Therefore, the college has no right of rejection of the

recommendation made by the West Bengal College Service

Commission. He has contended that, the selection of the writ

petitioner was made on the basis of requisition issued by the

appellants.

16. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has

contended that, on a previous occasion, the college had

informed the West Bengal College Service Commission not to

recommend any female candidates. West Bengal College

Service Commission had accepted such request of the college

and accordingly did not recommend any female candidate.

17. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has

contended that, once a recommendation was made by th e

West Bengal College Service Commission then the college

which is not a minority institution does not possess any power

to reject such recommendation. He has referred to the letter of

rejection. He has contended that, the grounds specified

therein are no ground at all. He has also referred to the letter

dated December 29, 2023 issued by the West Bengal College

8

Service Commission recommend ing the candidature of the

writ petitioner to the appellants.

18. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has

contended that, since, the college is not a minority institution,

it has no right to refuse the recommendation of the West

Bengal College Service Commission. He has contended that,

the college did not challenge the recommendation made by the

West Bengal College Service Commission.

19. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has

referred to the letter of objection of the college. He has also

referred to the posts which are alleged to be made by the writ

petitioner in the social media platform. He has contended

that, such post cannot be termed as obscene. In support of

such contention, he has relied upon 1983 Volume 2

Supreme Court Cases 145 (State of Madhya Pradesh vs.

Ramashanker Raghuvanshi and Another) and 2024

Volume 6 Supreme Court Cases181 ( Apoorva Arora and

Another vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and

Another).

20. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has

relied upon 2018 Volume 9 Supreme Court Cases 501

9

(Tehseen S. Poonwalla vs. Union of India and Others) ,

2024 Volume 4 Supreme Court Cases 156 (Javed Ahmad

Hajam vs. State of Maharashtra and Another) , 2015

Volume 2 Calcutta Law Times 71 (Ambikesh Mahapatra

and Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors.) , and AIR

1962 Supreme Court 955 (Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of

Bihar) on the issues of right to dissent, minority status and

sedition. He has submitted that, the Facebook posts cannot be

termed as seditious.

21. Learned advocate appearing for writ petitioner has

referred to the letter dated January 22, 2024 issued by the

college. He has contended that, the contents therein are

unsubstantiated.

22. Learned advocate appearing for writ petitioner has

referred to Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution of India. He

has contended that, freedom of speech of the writ petitioner is

guaranteed by the Constitution of India. He has relied upon

1995 Volume 4 Supreme Court Cases 646 (Bramchari

Sidheswar Shai and Others vs. State of W. B. and

Others), 2023 Volume 4 Supreme Court Cases 1 (Kaushal

Kishor vs. State of U.P and Others.), and 1980 Volume 2

10

Supreme Court Cases 593 (Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd and

Others. Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and

Others) in this regard.

23. Learned advocate appearing for the West Bengal

College Service Commission has referred to the West Bengal

College Service Commission Act, 2012. He has submitted that,

West Bengal College Service Commission had acted in

accordance with the Act of 2012 in rec ommending the

candidature of the writ petitioner. He has referred to Section 7

and 10 of the Act of 2012.

24. Learned advocate appearing for the West Bengal

College Service Commission has relied upon West Bengal

College Service Commission (Manner of Selection of Persons

for Appointment to the Post of Assistant Professor, Principals,

Librarians, Assistant Professors) Regulations, 2012. In

particular, he has referred to Regulation 3 and 9 thereof. He

has contended that, the only ground for refusal is of

ineligibility. He has contended that, the writ petitioner cannot

be termed to be ineligible for a grant of appointment. In this

regard, he has referred to the advertisement inviting

11

applications for appointment to the post of Assistant

Professors in different subjects of Government aided colleges.

25. Learned advocate appearing for the West Bengal

College Service Commission has relied upon 2020 Volume 2

Cal LJ 209 (Arun Sarkar (Dr.) vs. State of West Bengal

and Ors.), 2017 Volume 1 Cal LJ 102 (The Governing Body

of Bankim Sardar College and Another vs. State of West

Bengal and Ors.) and 2002 Volume 1 Cal LT 330

(Managing Committee, Chetla Boys High School & Ors vs.

West Bengal Board of Secondary Education & Ors .) in

support of his contentions.

26. West Bengal College Service Commission had issued

advertisement No. 1/2020 inviting obligation for the post of

Assistant Professor in State aided degree colleges in West

Bengal.

27. The writ petitioner had participated in such selection

process. West Bengal College Service Commission had issued

a notification calling for an interview on April 4, 2023. Writ

petitioner had participated in such interview on April 18,

2023. West Bengal College Service Commission had published

a merit list and vacancy list on September 22, 2023. Writ

12

petitioner had participated in the merit based counselling on

October 3, 2023.

28. West Bengal College Service Commission had issued a

recommendation letter in favour of the writ petitioner which

the writ petitioner received on January 3, 2024. Writ

petitioner had visited the office of the appellants on January

4, 2024 for the purpose of appointment. Writ petitioner had

issued a representation to the appellants on January 9, 2024

and a reminder letter dated January 20, 2024. Writ petitioner

had issued a representation dated January 22, 2024 to the

appellants.

29. By a letter dated January 22, 2024, the appellants had

informed the West Bengal College Service Commission of the

views of the governing body of the college. Appellants had

cited the strong views of the writ petitioner on religion and

society and claimed that such views were completely anti -

ethical to the fundamental ideas, ideals and philosophy of

Ramkrishna Mission which fosters unity and equal respect for

all religion and faith. Moreover, the writ petitioner had a clear

bias and made derogatory/obscene/disparaging remarks

against Ramkrishna Mission and its monks from time to time.

13

Appellants had voiced their serious concern over grant of

appointment to the writ petitioner as an Assistant Professor

which is a substantive post, whose views are aggressively

opposed to the fundamental ideals of Ramkrishna Mission and

its institutions. According to the appellants, such

appointment would risk vitiating the atmosphere of the college

permanently and diluting the principles of Ramkrishna

Mission. Accordingly, the appellants had regretted the

inability to accept the recommendation for the appointment of

the writ petitioner.

30. The present appeal has raised the fundamental issue

of whether or not a government aided college is under an

obligation to accept a recommendation for the appointment of

a teaching staff without any right of refusal. In the event, this

fundamental issue is answered by holding that, a government

aided college has the power of refusal then, the next question

that has arisen is whether, in the facts and circumstances of

the present case, the appellants were justified in refusing to

grant appointment to the writ petitioner or not.

31. The first issue has received consideration by a Co-

ordinate Bench in The Governing Body of Bankim Sardar

14

College & Anr. (supra). In that case, a learned Single Judge

had referred few questions to the Division Bench for decision.

Out of the questions so referred, the first had concerned,

whether a recommendation made by the College Service

Commission for the post of Principal, or for that matter, any

teaching post is binding upon the college and mandatory in

nature or not. The next question was, whether once a

recommendation had been made, could the college request the

College Service Commission to revis e or change such

recommendation.

32. Co-ordinate Bench in The Governing Body of

Bankim Sardar College & Anr. (supra) has answered such

questions by holding that, final decision whether or not to give

appointment to the selected person is in the realm of the

college authority. The decision of refusal of the College must

however, be bona fide, free from arbitrariness and in the best

interest of the concerned institution.

33. The Governing Body of Banki m Sardar College &

Anr. (supra) has considered such questions in the light of the

provisions of the West Bengal College Service Commission Act,

1978 and the regulations framed thereunder. In particular it

15

has considered Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Act of 1978. The Act

of 2012 has repealed the Act of 1978. The present case is

governed by the Act of 2012 and the regulations framed

thereunder.

34. Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the West Bengal College Service

Commission Act, 1978 which the co-ordinate Bench has

considered are as follows:-

7, (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law

for the time being in force or in any contract, custom or

usage to the contrary, it shall be the duty of the Commission

to select persons for appointment to the posts of Teachers of

a College:

Provided that—

(i) for selection of persons for appointment to the posts of

Teachers other than Principal, the Commission shall be

aided by two persons having special knowledge on the

subject for which such selection is to be made, of whom one

shall be a nominee of the University to which such college is

affiliated and the other shall be a nominee of the Chancellor

of such University,

(ii) for selection of person for appointment to the post of

Principal, the Commission shall be aided by the Vice -

Chancellor of the University to which such college is

affiliated or his nominee and a nominee of the Chancellor of

such University.

(2) It shall also be the duty of the Commission to advise the

Chancellor or the State Government on such manner as may

be referred to in by either of them.

16

8. (1) The manner of selection of persons for appointment to

the posts of Teachers of a college shall be such as may be

provided for by regulations.

(2) The procedure for the conduct of business of the

Commission shall be such as may be provided for by

regulations.

9. '(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law

for the time being on force or in any contract, custom or

usage to the contrary, appointments to the posts of Teachers

of a college shall be made on the recommendation of the

Commission.

'(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),—

(a) any recommendation, made before the constitution of

the Commission, by the Selection Committee referred to in

the first proviso to section 3 of the West Bengal College

Teachers (Security of Service) Act, 1975 for appointment to

any post of Teacher of a college shall remain valid for a

period of one year and six months from the date of such

recommendation and appointment to such post shall be

made on such recommendation;

(b) recommendation of the Commission shall not be

necessary with respect to the appointment, on a part-time

basis,—

• (i) to a post of Teacher of a college in the professional

subject of law, accountancy, business organisation or

secretarial practice, or (ii) to any vacancy for a period not

exceeding six months in any other post of Teacher of a

college occurring by reason of leave.

'(3) The method of, and the qualifications required for,

appointment of a Teacher of a college under clause (b) of

sub-suction (2) shall be such as may be prescribed. '

17

35. Chapter III of Act of 2012 has dealt with the powers

and functions of the Commission and zone which are as

follows:-

6. (1) There shall be eight zones of the Commission

consisting of following: Burdwan University zone,

Calcutta University zone, Gour Banga University

zone, Kalyani University zone, North Bengal

University zone, Sidho Kanho Birsha University

zone, Vidyasagar University zone, West Bengal

State University (Barasat, North 24-Parganas) zone:

Provided that there may be further zone or zones of

the Commission as may be notified by the State

Government from time to time.

(2) The jurisdictional limit of every zone of the

Commission may be determined by the State

Government in consultation with the Commission, by

order.

7. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any

other law for the time being in force or any contract,

customs or usage to the contrary, it shall be the duty

of the Commission to select persons and to

recommend for appointment to the post of Principals,

Assistant Professors and Librarians of Government

aided Colleges in West Bengal.

(2) The Members of the Commission shall render

necessary advice to the Chairperson in preparing a

panel of eligible candidates seeking appointments to

the post of Principals in various Government aided

Colleges in the State, in such manner as may be

provided by regulations.

18

(3) The Members of the Commission shall assist the

Chairperson in the selection process of candidates

for State wide empanelment of Assistant Professors

and Librarians in various Governments aided

Colleges in the State, in such manner as may be

provided for by regulations.

(4) For the purpose of recommendation of eligible

candidates in each post under this Act, the

Commission shall follow a counselling process as

may be provided by regulations.

8. (1) The manner of selection of persons for

appointment to the post of Principals, Assistant

Professors and Librarians in various Government

aided Colleges shall be such as may be provided for

by regulations.

(2) The conditions regarding eligibility for selection of

persons to the post of Principals, Assistant

Professors and Librarians in various Government

aided Colleges shall be such as may be prescribed

by the State Government.

(3) For selection of persons for appointment to the post

of principals in various Government aided Colleges

in West Bengal, the Commission shall be aided by

the following experts,—

(i) the Chancellor's nominee, not below the rank of a

Professor of a University; and

(ii) not less than two Vice-Chancellors of different

Universities or their nominees, not below the rank of

a Professor of a University:

Provided that where all the posts of Principals in

Government aided Colleges intended for

appointment fall under the jurisdiction of a single

University, the Commission shall be aided by the

19

Vice-Chancellor or his nominee not below the rank of

a Professor, of that University and any other Vice-

Chancellor or his nominee not below the rank of a

Professor of any other University as may be

provided for by regulations.

(4) For selection of persons for appointment to the post

of Assistant Professors and Librarians in various

Government aided Colleges, the Commission shall

constitute a panel of experts having special

knowledge on the subject for which such selection .is

to be made.

(5) In the panel constituted under sub-section (4),

there shall be one nominee, not below the rank of a

Professor from each University to which such

Colleges are affiliated and shall include one expert

not below the rank of a Professor representing all the

Universities as the nominee of the Chancellor. The

Commission may, in its discretion, appoint one

expert not below the rank of a University Professor

as its nominee in the said panel.

(6) The quorum for a panel shall be such as provided

for by regulations.

(7) In every selection of candidates in any post, the

Commission should satisfy itself before advertising

such post that relevant reservation policy and rules

of the State Government in this respect have been

duly complied with.

(8) The State Government may, by notification in the

Official Gazette, provide suitable provisions for

relaxation of age for certain categories of candidates

for the purpose of appearing in the selection process

of Assistant Professors and Librarians.

20

9. (1) Procedure for conduct of business of the

Commission shall be such as may be provided by

regulations.

(2) The State Government may give directions to the

Commission in conducting their business not

repugnant with the provisions of this Act.

10. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any

other law for the time being in force or in any

contract, customs or usages to the contrary,

appointments to the posts of Principals, Assistant

Professors and Librarians of the Government aided

Colleges in West Bengal shall be made on

recommendation of the Commission:

Provided that if in a College referred to in this section,

no student is admitted in a particular subject for two

consecutive academic sessions, the Commission

may, with prior approval of the State Government,

re-recommend such Assistant Professor of such

subject to another College having such post in same

subject where such students are available.

(2) Recommendation of the Commission shall not be

required in respect to any appointment on part-time

basis or contractual basis unless otherwise provided

under this Act

11. Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in

this Act, the terms and conditions of service of

Principals, Assistant Professors or Librarians of a

College immediately before the commencement of

this Act, shall not be varied to the extent of

disadvantage of such Principals, Assistant

Professors or Librarians, as the case may be, in so

far as such terms and conditions are related to the

21

appointment to such posts held by them immediately

before the commencement of this Act.

12. The Commission may call for any records, reports

or other information from any college, Government

College or from any University, if in its opinion, such

records, reports or other information is necessary for

efficient discharge of its functions and in such cases,

the College or the University shall furnish such

records, reports or other information to the

Commission, as the case may be.

36. Effect of recommendation under the Act of 1978 has

been diluted in Section 10(1) of the Act of 2012. The proviso to

Section 10(1) of the Act of 2012 has the effect of permitting the

Commission, in the event, no student is admitted in a

particular subject for two consecutive academic sessions, to

re-recommend the Assistant Professor to another College

where students are available. The repealed Act of 1978 did not

have provision of re-recommendation. Sub-Section (2) of

Section 10 has provided that no recommendation of the

Commission is required in respect of any appointment on part

time basis or contractual basis unless provided for under the

Act of 2012.

37. The Act of 2012 has allowed re-recommendation of a

candidate. It has by necessary implication acknowledged that

22

a recommendation may not be acted upon, therefore, retaining

the right to make a re-recommendation. While, the Act of 1978

did not provide for re-recommendation of an Assistant

Professor, the first proviso to Section 10 (1) of the Act of 2012

has envisaged the same and provided for it. Moreover, Sub-

Section (2) of Section 10 of the Act of 2012 has provided for

appointment on a part time or contractual basis without

recommendation of the West Bengal College Service

Commission whereas, the Act of 1978 has a much stricter

provision in this regard.

38. A far more stringent effect of recommendation of the

West Bengal College Service Commission as embodied in

Section 9 of the Act of 1978, has been read and understood by

the Coordinate Bench in The Governing Body of Banki m

Sardar College & Anr. (supra) to mean that, the concerned

college has a right of refusal of such recommendation provided

that, the decision to refuse is bona fide, free of arbitrariness

and in the best interest of the concerned institution.

39. The provisions of recommendations made under the

Act of 2012 have to considered in light of the provisions of the

Contract Act, 1872 and the Specific Relief Act, 1943. It is trite

23

law that, contract is to be entered into voluntarily to be legally

valid. The appellants would be entering into a contract of

employment on the basis of the recommendation of the

Commission. The Act of 2012 does not impact the voluntary

nature of contract of employment an Education Institution is

required to enter into in the basis of the recommendation of

the Commission. Commission under the Act of 2012 is the

authority to short list the list of candidates who are found

eligible to be recommended for appointment, after a duly held

selection process identifies the list of successful candidates.

All that the Act of 2012 prohibits is employment of the

specified classes without the recommendation of the

Commission. Such prohibition does not impact the

requirement of the Contract Act for all contracts to be entered

into by free will.

40. A contract of employment cannot be specifically

enforced under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1943.

Such prohibition is however subject to three exceptions. The

recommendation of the Commission do not fall within the

exceptions thereof.

24

41. The provisions of the Act of 2012 including the

provisions for recommendation have to be read in the context

of existing laws in the country. The provisions of the Act of

2012 should not be read in derogation of the existing laws.

Laws governing contract has also been overridden by the

provisions of the Act of 2012. In such context, a

recommendation made under the Act of 2012 has to be read

and understood.

42. In our view, the scheme of the Act of 2012 is to ensure

that, the quality of the teaching staff in respect of educational

institutions governed by the Act of 2012 meets the requisite

standard. In ensuring that such minimum standard of the

teaching staff is maintained the College Service Commission

has been vested/entrusted with the authority to make

recommendations for appointment. Educational institutions

governed by the Act of 2012 ha ve been ordained not to

appoint other than the recommendations made by the College

Service Commission, save and except for the exceptions

provided therein.

43. The right of refusal of the concerned educational

institutions to accept the recommendation does not militate

25

against the scheme of the Act of 2012. Rather, it advances the

objects of the Act of 2012 of maintaining the quality of the

teaching staff of the educational institution. An educational

institution governed by the Act of 201 2 can reject a

recommendation made by the College Service Commission.

However, such rejection must conform to the parameters laid

down in the ratio of the Co-ordinate Bench in The Governing

Body of Bankim Sardar College & Anr. (supra).

44. Significantly, the Act of 2012 vests the authority of

appointment with the concerned educational institution

despite the recommendation of the College Service

Commission.

45. The contention of the writ petitioner that, since the

panel has expired therefore, the writ petitioner will have no

recourse to employment is not acceptable in the facts and

circumstances of the present case. Writ petitioner had

participated in the selection process knowing fully well that he

would be recommended to one particular educational

institution only, and that, such educational institution retains

the right to refuse appointment. Expiry of the panel or the

inability to get an appointment through the selection process

26

are no grounds for the writ court to force the educational

institution to enter into a contract of employment which it

does not want for valid reasons.

46. Writ petitioner as a participant in a selection process

has a right of fair consideration. Writ petitioner does not

possess an absolute right to the appointment. In the facts of

the present case, candidature of the writ petitioner was

considered fairly. His appointment was refused on a ground

which is plausible. A Writ Court need not sit in appeal over

such plausible view of the appellants.

47. In such circumstances, the fundamental issue as to

whether, a college falling within the purview of the Act of 2012

has the right to refuse the appointment of a candidate

recommended by the West Bengal College Service Commission

or not, is answered by holding that, such college has the right

to do so, provided that, the decision not to accept the

recommendation is bona fide, free of arbitrariness and in the

best interest of the concerned institution.

48. Having answered such issue as noted above, the next

question is whether, the right of refusal which the appellants

27

had, was exercised in a bona fide, free from arbitrariness and

in the best interest of the institution or not.

49. Writ petitioner had made facebook posts prior to the

recommendation. Such facebook posts appear as part of the

records. Without entering into the details of each of those

facebook posts, suffice it to say, that through such posts, writ

petitioner has expressed strong views on religions, conduct of

the Ramkrishna Mission of which, the college is a part, and

the monks of Ramkrishna Mission. Writ petitioner has also

expressed strong views with regard to other religions in the

context of the religion professed by the writ petitioner.

50. Every person has the fundamental right to profess his

or her religion. Right to profess such religion however, cannot

be construed to mean that, such person is permitted to hurt

the faith or the religious sentiments of any other person. The

facebook posts of the writ petitioner has the propensity of

hurting sentiments of other religions.

51. A view of the authority which is plausible on a given

factual matrix cannot be termed to be arbitrary. The

Governing body of the appellants have taken a decision of

unsuitability of the writ petitioner in the interest of the

28

educational institution, on the basis of the views of the writ

petitioner expressed on the social media platforms. Therefore,

decision of the Governing body of the Educational Institution,

cannot be said to be not plausible. Once such decision cannot

be classified as not plausible, it cannot be held to be arbitrary.

There is nothing on record to establish that, the decision of

the appellants is malafide or contrary to the best interest of

the concerned institution. Simpliciter on the ground that the

impugned decision of the appellants rejects the

recommendation for the appointment of the writ petitioner, it

cannot be treated as malafide.

52. The contention of the writ petitioner that, his

fundamental right of freedom of speech a nd to practice

religion have been affected by the decision of the appellants,

cannot be accepted. The decision of the appellant is in relation

to a recommendation made by the West Bengal College Service

Commission and has no bearing on either the freedom of

speech of the writ petitioner or his fundamental right to

practice his religion. By the decision impugned in the writ

petition the College has neither prevented the writ petitioner

29

from expressing his views nor restrained him from practising

his religion.

53. We need not enter into the arena as to whether or not

the views of the writ petitioner are obscene or seditious as

they are not issues for the purpose of consideration of the

impugned decision of the College in the writ petition. Views

which may neither be seditious nor obscene, be nonetheless

inimical to the concerned educational institution . The

authorities on the subject of obscenity and sedition cited at

the Bar, therefore, need not to be alluded to in any details

herein.

54. So far as the cross appeal of the writ petitioner is

concerned, it is directed against specified recordings made in

the impugned judgment and order. The subject recording in

the impugned judgment and order is to the effect that, in

response to the query of the Court , learned advocate

appearing for the writ petitioner had assured the Court that

the writ petitioner if given the appointment would not persist

with his views as expressed earlier, in the social media

platform.

30

55. Writ petitioner did not approach the learned Single

Judge who had made the recording in the impugned judgment

and order as to the alleged incorrectness thereof. We are not

minded to enter into such arena as, we have decided to set

aside the impugned judgment and order itself.

56. In view of the discussions above, the impugned

judgment and order dated September 4, 2025 passed in WPA

6005 of 2024 is set aside. MAT 1604 of 2025 and COT 163 of

2025 are disposed of accordingly without any order as to

costs.

[DEBANGSU BASAK, J.]

57. I agree.

[MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J .]