Government-Aided Colleges Retain Right to Refuse Recommended Candidates for Bona Fide and Institutional Interests

The West Bengal College Service Commission ("Commission") recommended the writ petitioner (Tamal Dasgupta) for the post of Assistant Professor in English at the appellant College.

The College’s Governing Body refused to issue an appointment letter, citing the petitioner’s social media posts which contained "obscene, scurrilous, demeaning and insulting remarks" against religion, the Ramkrishna Mission, and its monks.

The College contended these views were anti-ethical to its philosophy and would vitiate the academic atmosphere.

The writ petitioner challenged this refusal. A Single Judge directed the College to appoint the petitioner.

The College appealed, and the petitioner filed a cross-objection regarding certain recordings in the judgment.

1. Whether a government-aided college is under an absolute obligation to accept a recommendation for the appointment of teaching staff made by the Commission without any right of refusal.

2. Whether, in the specific facts of the case, the appellants were justified in refusing to grant appointment to the writ petitioner based on his conduct/views.

Interpretation of Sections 7, 8, and 10 of the West Bengal College Service Commission Act, 2012, noting that while appointment must be made on the Commission's recommendation, the Act allows for "re-recommendation" in certain cases, implying recommendations are not always absolute.

The precedent The Governing Body of Bankim Sardar College & Anr. v. State of West Bengal, which held that the final decision to appoint remains with the college, provided the refusal is bona fide, non-arbitrary, and in the institution's best interest.

Principles from the Indian Contract Act, 1872 regarding the voluntary nature of employment contracts and the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which generally prohibits the specific performance of a contract of personal service.

The Court reasoned that the Act of 2012 ensures minimum teaching standards but does not override the fundamental legal requirement that a contract (including employment) must be entered into by free will.

The power to recommend does not equate to a power to force an unwilling employer into a contract of service unless the refusal is mala fide.

The Court found that the petitioner’s Facebook posts—which targeted the very institution he sought to join and its religious foundations—provided a "plausible" ground for the Governing Body to deem him unsuitable.

The Court emphasized that while the petitioner has a right to free speech and religion, the College’s refusal to hire him does not infringe upon those rights; it merely reflects a decision that his expressed views are "inimical to the concerned educational institution".

Because the decision was plausible and aimed at protecting the college atmosphere, it was neither arbitrary nor mala fide.

The Court found the appellant College’s refusal justified due to the petitioner’s derogatory public remarks against the Mission's monks and ideology.

The Court set aside the Single Judge’s order, allowed the appeal (MAT 1604 of 2025), and dismissed the writ petitioner's cross-objection; the College is not required to appoint the petitioner.