New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a writ petition challenging irregularities in a recruitment notification issued by the National Institute of Technology (NIT), Jamshedpur, ruling that routine service matters should typically be adjudicated by the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution rather than by the Supreme Court under Article 32.
A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti declined to entertain the petition, observing that the remedy under Article 32 is “extraordinary” and not meant for grievances that do not raise substantial questions of constitutional import.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Nitish Verma, had approached the Supreme Court filing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1004 of 2025, invoking the Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petition alleged certain irregularities in a recruitment notification issued by NIT Jamshedpur, specifically concerning “reservation, computation under a recruitment notification.”
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The bench took a stern view of the direct invocation of Article 32 for what it termed as “routine service matters.” The Court emphasized that while Article 32 is a fundamental right, it is not an appropriate forum for every grievance.
In its order, the Bench observed:
“This Court has repeatedly emphasised that Article 32 is not an open highway for every grievance dressed under the garb of a fundamental right violation. It is a sacred constitutional artery to be invoked when the life blood of liberty itself is imperiled, not for routine service matters that find their natural home under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, before the High Courts.”
The Court noted that the petition, “shorn of rhetoric,” did not raise any substantial question of constitutional import nor did it disclose any extraordinary circumstance warranting direct intervention. The judges remarked that a grievance regarding reservation computation “cannot be permitted to masquerade as a constitutional crisis.”
Highlighting the sanctity of the constitutional remedy, the Court stated:
“While this Court stands as the guardian and watchtower of fundamental rights, it must also remind litigants that every knock on the door of Article 32 dilutes it’s sanctity if made without due cause. The constitutional remedy is meant to remain extraordinary, not ornamental, not habitual.”
The Bench further added a significant observation regarding the misuse of constitutional remedies as shortcuts:
“The Majesty of Article 32 lies not in its frequency of invocation but in the gravity of the cause that compels it.”
Decision
Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition. However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief before the “jurisdictional High Court which is the proper forum in law.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: Nitish Verma v. Union of India & Ors.
- Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1004/2025
- Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
- Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Babul Kumar, Ms. Monika, Mr. Azeem Khan, and Ms. Aswathi M.K. (AOR)
