The West Bengal College Service Commission had recommended the appointment of the petitioner to the post of assistant professor of English in 2023 following a selection process. However, the governing body of the college refused to accept the recommendation, citing his public social media posts expressing strong views on religion and society.

The counsel appearing for the college said that the posts displayed hatred, and contained demeaning and insulting remarks directed at another religion and the ideology of Ramakrishna Mission and its monks. The governing body concluded that appointing him would permanently vitiate the atmosphere of the college.

Justices Debangsu Basak and Md Shabbar Rashidi observed that the man’s online posts in question had the capacity to hurt religious sentiments.

Following this, the appointee approached the high court, where a single judge disposed of the plea by directing the college to issue a letter of appointment in his favour. Challenging this order, the college filed an appeal.

Posts could hurt religious sentiments: Court

The high court noted that the petitioner did not possess an absolute right to the appointment and observed that it was refused on a plausible ground. The college has the right to refuse a candidate’s appointment, provided that the decision is bona fide, free of arbitrariness and in the best interest of the concerned institution, it said.

The judges observed that the Facebook posts in question had the propensity to hurt the sentiments of other religions. “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,” the court held.

Through the Facebook posts, the petitioner had expressed strong views on religions, the conduct of the Ramakrishna Mission, of which the college is a part, and the monks under the mission, the court noted and rejected his contention that the college’s decision affected the fundamental right to freedom of speech and to practise religion.

“The decision of the appellant (college) 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,” the court remarked.

Bench allows college’s plea

It pointed out that the college neither prevented the man from expressing his views nor restrained him from practising his religion. “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,” the high court added.

The bench allowed the college’s appeal, dismissed the candidate’s cross-objection and set aside the single judge’s order directing his appointment.