Kolkata: A person has the right to profess his religion, but that cannot be construed as permission to hurt others’ faith, the Calcutta High Court has observed while setting aside a man’s appointment as an assistant professor at a college here over his social media posts.
This came on the plea of the Ramkrishna Mission College in West Bengal’s Narendrapur against a single bench’s September 4, 2025, order directing the institute to appoint Tamal Dasgupta as an assistant professor of English.
A division bench led by Justice Debangsu Basak and also comprising Justice Md Shabbar Rashidi held that the candidate’s social media posts had the potential to hurt the sentiments of followers of other religions.
Dasgupta expressed strong views on religion other than his
Noting that Dasgupta expressed strong views about religions other than his own, it held that the candidate’s contention that his fundamental rights of freedom of speech and to practice religion were affected by the college’s decision to refuse him appointment cannot be accepted.
The court also noted that Dasgupta had made social media posts prior to the West Bengal College Service Commission’s recommendation for his recruitment to the position, expressing strong views on religions, the conduct of the Ramkrishna Mission of which the college is a part, and the monks of the order.
Passing judgment last week, the division bench said, “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 court observed.
The college authority had appealed against the single-bench order that directed it to issue a letter of appointment to Dasgupta to the post of assistant professor in English at the college and to permit him to join that post within four weeks.
Setting aside the single bench judgment, the division bench held that the college’s decision 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 Dasgupta or his fundamental right to practice his religion.
“By the decision impugned in the writ petition, the college has neither prevented the writ petitioner (Dasgupta) from expressing his views nor restrained him from practising his religion,” it observed.
Court says College has right to refuse appointment of a candidate
Holding that the governing body of the college deciding that Dasgupta was unsuitable for the position was in the interest of the educational institution and was based on his social media posts, the court said its decision could not be deemed implausible.
“Once such a decision cannot be classified as not plausible, it cannot be held to be arbitrary,” the division bench said, upholding the decision of the college authority.
It said the West Bengal College Service Commission Act, 2012, vests the educational institution concerned with the authority of offering appointment despite the recommendation of the College Service Commission.
The high court held that Dasgupta’s candidature was considered fairly and that, as a participant in the selection process, a candidate has a right to fair consideration but does not possess an absolute right to the appointment.
The court held that a college within the purview of the Act has the right to refuse the appointment of a candidate recommended by the West Bengal College Service Commission provided that the decision is “bona fide, free of arbitrariness and in the best interest of the institution concerned”.
College authority claimed Dasgupta’s comments were antithetical
The counsel for the college argued that Ramkrishna Mission, Narendrapur, a branch of the Ramkrishna Mission, a religious and charitable non-governmental organisation, runs the institute.
He stated that upon taking the commission’s recommendation, the college authority noted that the candidate made several public statements and social media posts from time to time, which were seen as strong views on religion and society.
Contending that such comments were completely antithetical to the fundamental ideas, ideals, and philosophy of the Ramkrishna Mission, the advocate stated that the candidate appeared biased against order.
As such, the college’s governing body did not accept the recommendation to appoint Dasgupta and communicated the decision to the Commission, he stated.
Dasgupta’s lawyer contended before the court that the appellant college authority did not doubt his teaching capability. The posts were personal in nature and had nothing to do with the petitioner’s teaching capability, he had argued.
