HC restores DRDO appointment as Director-General of Brahmos

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has set aside the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order cancelling the appointment of Dr Jaiteerth Joshi as Director-General (BrahMos) and directed that the selection made by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) be allowed to stand.

The division bench of Justices Puthichira Sam Koshy and NandikondaNarsing Rao pronounced the common order on Wednesday, while allowing writs filed by the Union of India and another petitioner.

The dispute arose from the appointment of the Director-General (BrahMos), a post overseeing the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile programme. The post fell vacant in December 2024 following the retirement of the incumbent. The DRDO subsequently issued an in-house notification inviting applications from eligible senior scientists.

The selection process required candidates to be scientists in the grade of scientist H or above, to have served as a laboratory director, programme director or corporate director, and to have at least 12 months of residual service. An MTech or PhD was listed as a desirable qualification.

A screening committee shortlisted eligible candidates, after which a selection committee interviewed them and recommended a panel of three names. The competent authority, Secretary, Department of Defence Research and Development and chairman of DRDO, selected Dr Jaiteerth Joshi for the post.

Dr Sivasubramaniam Nambi Naidu, one of the shortlisted candidates, challenged the appointment before the CAT. He contended that he was a distinguished scientist at level 16 and superior to Dr. Joshi, who was an outstanding scientist at level 15, and therefore should have been preferred.

The tribunal accepted his challenge on December 29, 2025, set aside Dr. Joshi’s appointment and directed the authorities to reconsider Dr. Naidu’s candidature. The Union of India challenged the tribunal’s order before the HC, contending that the tribunal had exceeded the limits of judicial review by reassessing the comparative merits of the candidates.

The HC agreed with the Union’s contention. It noted that the advertisement, the standard operating procedure and the Defence Research and Development Service Rules, 2023 did not give any additional weightage to seniority, a higher pay level or the status of distinguished scientist in the selection.

The bench noted that both Dr Naidu and Dr. Joshi fulfilled the prescribed eligibility requirements. The selection committee had assessed the candidates and found the shortlisted scientists to be equally meritorious. The competent authority then selected Dr. Joshi, taking into account, among other factors, his experience in handling international joint-venture projects.

The bench held that courts and tribunals cannot sit in appeal over the assessment of an expert selection committee unless the process is shown to be vitiated by illegality, mala fides, arbitrariness or violation of the prescribed rules.

It observed that the Director-General (BrahMos) is a highly sensitive and strategic post linked to national security, defence preparedness and international collaboration. The court said greater restraint was therefore required while examining the selection.

The bench noted that Dr. Naidu had participated in the selection process, including the interaction with the selection committee, without questioning the criteria or the selection procedure. It was only after his non-selection that he challenged those aspects of the process.

The court rejected the tribunal’s reliance on a confidential note concerning the number of distinguished scientists in DRDO. It held that the note did not create any preference for distinguished scientists over eligible scientist H candidates for the post of Director- General (BrahMos).

The bench concluded that the tribunal had exceeded the permissible limits of judicial review by substituting its own assessment of seniority, grade, awards and other factors for the judgment of the expert selection committee and the competent authority.

Accordingly, the HC allowed the pleas and set aside the tribunal’s December 29, 2025 order.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Legal Correspondent

[email protected]