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

A division bench comprising Justice Puthichira Sam Koshy and Justice Nandikonda Narsing Rao pronounced the common order on Wednesday. The court allowed the writ petitions filed by the Union of India alongside another petitioner.

The legal dispute stemmed from the appointment to the prestigious post of Director-General (BrahMos), which involves overseeing the strategic BrahMos supersonic cruise missile program. The high-profile position fell vacant in December 2024 following the retirement of the previous incumbent.

Following the vacancy, the DRDO issued an in-house notification inviting applications from eligible senior scientists across its ranks.

As per the official criteria, the selection process required candidates to be scientists holding the grade of scientist H or above. Candidates were also required to have served as a laboratory director, program director, or corporate director, while possessing at least 12 months of residual service. Additionally, an MTech or PhD degree was listed as a desirable qualification.

A dedicated screening committee initially shortlisted the eligible candidates. Subsequently, an expert selection committee interviewed them and recommended a panel containing three prospective names.

The competent authority, namely the Secretary of the Department of Defence Research and Development who also serves as the chairman of DRDO, ultimately selected Dr Jaiteerth Joshi for the top post.

However, Dr Sivasubramaniam Nambi Naidu, who was one of the shortlisted candidates, challenged this appointment before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Dr Naidu contended that he was a distinguished scientist at pay level 16 and thus superior to Dr Joshi, who was an outstanding scientist at pay level 15. On these grounds, Dr Naidu argued that he should have been preferred for the role.

The tribunal accepted Dr Naidu's challenge on 29 December 2025, proceeded to set aside Dr Joshi's appointment, and directed the authorities to reconsider Dr Naidu's candidature.

Aggrieved by this decision, the Union of India challenged the tribunal's order before the Telangana High Court. The Union contended that the tribunal had exceeded the permissible limits of judicial review by re-assessing the comparative merits of the shortlisted candidates.

The High Court agreed with the Union's argument. It noted that the official advertisement, the standard operating procedure, and the Defence Research and Development Service Rules, 2023 did not grant any extra weightage to seniority, a higher pay level, or the status of being a distinguished scientist.

The bench observed that both Dr Naidu and Dr Joshi fulfilled all the prescribed eligibility criteria for the strategic position. The selection committee had evaluated the candidates and found the shortlisted scientists to be equally meritorious.

The competent authority selected Dr Joshi after taking into account various decisive aspects, including his extensive experience in managing complex international joint-venture projects.

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

It further highlighted that the post of Director-General (BrahMos) is a highly sensitive and strategic position directly linked to national security, defence preparedness, and international collaboration. Consequently, the court emphasised that greater judicial restraint is necessary when examining such selections.

The bench also pointed out that Dr Naidu had fully participated in the selection process, including the interaction with the selection committee, without raising any objections regarding the criteria or procedure. It was only after his non-selection that he chose to challenge those aspects.

Furthermore, the court rejected the tribunal's reliance on a confidential note concerning the number of distinguished scientists within DRDO. The bench held that the note did not create any automatic preference for distinguished scientists over eligible scientist H candidates for the position of Director-General (BrahMos).

In conclusion, the High Court held that the tribunal had crossed its legal mandate by substituting its own assessment of seniority, grade, awards, and other factors for the expert judgment of the selection committee and the competent authority. The bench allowed the pleas and set aside the tribunal's order dated 29 December 2025.

Agencies