The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad Bench, has nullified the appointment of the Director General of BrahMos Aerospace, finding that the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) failed to justify its choice despite clear differences in seniority and rank among the shortlisted candidates.
In an order delivered on December 29, the tribunal set aside the November 25, 2024 office order appointing Dr Jaiteerth R. Joshi as DG (BrahMos) and directed the authorities to reconsider the candidature of Dr Sivasubramaniam Nambi Naidu, a Distinguished Scientist, within four weeks
Dr Naidu, who heads DRDO’s Centre for Advanced Systems, had challenged the appointment arguing that he was senior to Dr Joshi, held a higher scientific rank, and had been promoted to Pay Level-16 as a Distinguished Scientist after a rigorous peer-review process. Dr Joshi, by contrast, was an Outstanding Scientist in Pay Level-15 with about one year of experience at that grade.
Both officers applied for the post under Advertisement No. 03/2024. A selection committee shortlisted candidates, conducted interactions on October 22, 2024, and forwarded a panel of three names to the competent authority. CAT noted that while the applicant, the selected officer, and another candidate were awarded identical marks, the panel was forwarded in alphabetical order, without recording any order of preference or comparative assessment
The tribunal observed that although the Secretary, Department of Defence Research and Development and Chairman, DRDO, is empowered under service rules to select one candidate from the panel, such discretion must be exercised on rational and transparent grounds. It held that discretionary power does not permit ignoring relevant service factors such as seniority, experience, and scientific standing without recorded reasons.
Referring to DRDO’s internal records, CAT highlighted that the rank of Distinguished Scientist is conferred sparingly and that Director General posts are ordinarily occupied by officers at that level. The tribunal noted that Dr Naidu had served as Scientist ‘H’ since 2017 and was promoted to Distinguished Scientist in 2024, whereas Dr Joshi was elevated to Scientist ‘H’ only in 2023. In this context, the tribunal found no explanation for preferring the junior officer.
The order also pointed out that the approval file did not disclose how marks were allocated or why Dr Joshi was assessed as “most suitable” despite parity in scores. The absence of recorded reasoning, CAT said, rendered the decision arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
The tribunal quashed the appointment and directed DRDO to reconsider Dr Naidu’s claim afresh. Until a final decision is taken, the organisation has been instructed to make an interim in-charge arrangement, excluding the officer whose appointment has been set aside.
