Archive · 24 Sep 2026
Telangana High Court Restores DRDO BrahMos Director-General Appointment
The Defence Research and Development Organisation chose Dr Jaiteerth Joshi to lead the BrahMos programme.
Another scientist, Dr Sivasubramaniam Nambi Naidu, challenged that choice.
He said his higher job level and distinguished-scientist status should have given him preference.
The Central Administrative Tribunal agreed with him and cancelled Dr Joshi’s appointment.
The Union government appealed to the Telangana High Court.
The High Court said both scientists met the stated requirements.
It ruled that the expert selection committee and the competent authority had the right to choose among qualified candidates.
The court therefore restored Dr Joshi’s appointment.
The Telangana High Court restored Dr Jaiteerth Joshi’s appointment as Director-General (BrahMos).
The court set aside the Central Administrative Tribunal’s December 29, 2025 order cancelling the appointment.
Dr Sivasubramaniam Nambi Naidu had argued that his higher grade and status as a distinguished scientist made him the stronger candidate.
The High Court held that selection rules did not give extra weight to seniority, higher pay level or distinguished-scientist status.
The court said tribunals cannot replace an expert selection committee’s assessment absent illegality, bad faith, arbitrariness or rule violations.
- Who
- The Telangana High Court, the Union of India, the Defence Research and Development Organisation, Dr Jaiteerth Joshi and Dr Sivasubramaniam Nambi Naidu.
- What
- The High Court set aside the tribunal’s order cancelling Dr Joshi’s appointment as Director-General (BrahMos) and restored the selection.
- When
- The High Court pronounced its common order on Wednesday; the tribunal’s order was dated December 29, 2025.
- Where
- The case was decided by the Telangana High Court in Hyderabad.
- Why
- The court found that the tribunal had exceeded the limits of judicial review by reassessing the comparative merits of candidates without finding illegality, bad faith, arbitrariness or a breach of the rules.
Dr Naidu’s Challenge
Union and DRDO’s Defence
Candidate preference
Dr Naidu’s Challenge
Dr Naidu argued that he was a distinguished scientist at level 16 and therefore should have been preferred to Dr Joshi, an outstanding scientist at level 15.
Union and DRDO’s Defence
The Union and DRDO argued that the selection rules did not give additional weight to seniority, a higher pay level or distinguished-scientist status.
Scope of judicial review
Dr Naidu’s Challenge
The tribunal accepted Dr Naidu’s challenge and directed the authorities to reconsider his candidature.
Union and DRDO’s Defence
The Union argued that the tribunal improperly reassessed the candidates’ comparative merits and exceeded the limits of judicial review; the High Court agreed.
Basis for selection
Dr Naidu’s Challenge
Dr Naidu questioned the outcome after he was not selected, despite having participated in the selection process without challenging the criteria beforehand.
Union and DRDO’s Defence
The selection committee found the shortlisted scientists equally meritorious, and the competent authority selected Dr Joshi while considering factors including his experience with international joint-venture projects.
- Appointee
- Dr Jaiteerth Joshi
- Position
- Director-General (BrahMos)
- Organisation
- Defence Research and Development Organisation
- Challenger
- Dr Sivasubramaniam Nambi Naidu
- Tribunal order
- The Central Administrative Tribunal cancelled the appointment on December 29, 2025.
- Eligibility
- Candidates had to be Scientist H or above, have specified leadership experience and at least 12 months of residual service.
- High Court ruling
- The tribunal’s order was set aside and the DRDO selection was allowed to stand.