Ramkrishna Mission Cannot Deny Appointment To Professor Merely Due To Divergent Views Expressed Online: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has ordered the Ramkrishna Mission to appoint the petitioner, an Assistant Professor in English, who was being denied appointment despite being eligible, over some social media posts made by him, which were seen as against the ideology of the mission, claiming to be a 'minority institution.Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee held: "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. As noted earlier, 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."BackgroundThe issue that arose for consideration was whether a College Authority can lawfully refuse to accept the recommendation of the West Bengal College Service Commission and decline to issue an appointment letter in favour of the candidate recommended.The petitioner obtained his M.A. degree in English, qualified NET-JRF in 2007 and was awarded a Ph.D. degree by Calcutta University in 2015. In 2020, the Commission initiated a recruitment process, and the petitioner successfully cleared the interview. Then, the merit-based counselling was conducted and the petitioner chose the Ramkrishna Mission Residential College (Autonomous), Narendrapur, Kolkata,However, the College declined to issue the letter of appointment on the grounds that the recommendation of the Commission was not binding upon it. Confronted with such a situation, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.The respondent no. 3, namely the College, defended its decision to decline issuance of an appointment letter in favour of the petitioner in its affidavit-in-opposition, stating that the College is 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.It was stated that when the matter of the petitioner's appointment was placed before the Governing Body of the College for consideration, it transpired that the petitioner had, on various occasions, made numerous comments and posts on social media platforms, which continued to remain accessible in the public domain.Upon consideration of the said comments and posts, the Governing Body 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 inconsistent with the fundamental ideals, philosophy and guiding principles of the Ramakrishna Mission. It was further submitted that on several occasions the petitioner had displayed a clear bias against the Ramakrishna Mission and had made derogatory, obscene and disparaging remarks against the institution as well as its monks.Therefore, the Governing Body was of the view that the petitioner's appointment would pose a risk of permanently vitiating the atmosphere of the College and undermining the principles cherished and upheld by the Ramakrishna Mission. Accordingly, the Governing Body resolved not to accept the recommendation of the Commission.Petitioner submitted that he had signed a declaration which effectively forfeited his right to be considered for appointment in any other College, and he has been placed in a precarious situation and is now left stranded in a no man's land, being effectively deprived of his opportunity of employment.It was submitted that India is a secular country and that government-funded institutions are expected to uphold secular principles. According to him, the College cannot claim protection under Article 30(1) or Article 26(a) of the Constitution of India. It is neither entitled to propagate any religious ideology nor permitted to compel anyone to adhere to such ideology, particularly when the Constitution guarantees to every citizen the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.According to the relevant provisions of the College Service Commission Act, 2017, upon receipt of a recommendation, the College is required only to verify the candidate's documents and is obliged to permit the candidate to join. A College run by an autonomous body cannot claim immunity to reject the recommendation of the Commission or the candidature of a recommended candidate.FindingsThe court noted that Article 26(a) of the Constitution of India recognises the right of every religious denomination, or any section thereof, to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, but they are not entitled to...

Ramkrishna Mission Cannot Deny Appointment To Professor Merely Due To Divergent Views Expressed Online: Calcutta High Court

Srinjoy Das

'The principles lived and experienced by Sri Ramakrishna, and further articulated by Swami Vivekananda, are of such universality that they may be accepted even by persons professing a different religion, faith, or ideology,' the court said.

Tags