CAT orders the removal of BrahMos Aerospace DG & CEO Jaiteerth R Joshi and asks the Defence Ministry to reconsider senior scientist S Nambi Naidu for the post, questioning the selection process and SOP changes.
New Delhi: In a major setback to DRDO and BrahMos Aerospace, the Hyderabad bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on Monday ordered the removal of the current Director General and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of BrahMos, Jaiteerth R. Joshi, and asked the Defence Ministry to reconsider the claim of the senior-most scientist, Sivasubramaniam Nambi Naidu, for the top post.
In its order, the tribunal directed the Defence Ministry and DRDO to reconsider Naidu's appointment within four weeks. Until a decision is made, the CAT instructed that an in-charge arrangement be put in place — but not with the current Director General.
CAT Reprimands DRDO Secretary Over Selection Process
The tribunal also took note of the powers of the Secretary, Defence Research and Development and Chairman, DRDO, stating that while he may approve one of the names recommended by the Selection Committee for the Director General’s post, he cannot ignore the entire service record of the other Scientists included in the panel.
Related Articles
This observation came as part of the order issued after Naidu challenged Joshi’s appointment in November last year.
Why Naidu Challenged the Appointment
Naidu argued that as a Distinguished Scientist in Level-16 and being senior to the current Director General, his case deserved stronger consideration.
His plea stated: “Joshi’s appointment is not in accordance with the principles of fair selection in public employment.”
Naidu approached the CAT on November 19, 2024, claiming that his seniority and experience had been overlooked. He also pointed out that he was the senior-most scientist among all candidates, while Joshi was the junior-most.
Joshi took charge as Director General of BrahMos on December 2, 2024.
DRDO Defends Selection Process
The Defence Ministry and DRDO maintained that there was no irregularity or illegality in Joshi’s appointment, stating that the selection process was conducted in line with the rules and the terms laid out in the advertisement.
SOP Changes Raise Questions
The tribunal examined the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) governing appointments to the Director General’s post.
Until 2022, the SOP required that candidates:
- Be a Scientist in Grade “H” or above
- Have served as Laboratory Director, Programme Director or Corporate Director
- Possess at least 18 months of residual service
A M.Tech or PhD was listed as a desirable qualification.
However, on February 28, 2023, the DRDO issued a corrigendum reducing the residual service requirement from 18 months to 12 months. An advertisement inviting applications for the DG BrahMos position followed in 2024.
Tribunal Sees “Vested Interest” in SOP Change
The tribunal made a strong observation regarding the timing and impact of the SOP modification:
“It can be said that this has been done with vested interest, knowing fully well that it is a sensitive post and a Scientist with higher qualification and technical experience of working in DRDO with immaculate service record will be considered for appointment to the post of DG Brahmos and the person who has already been promoted as Distinguished Scientist, having all these qualitative requirements and having been found fit for the appointment. Though the panel of names was arranged in alphabetical order, it is not supported by any Rules.”
Distinguished Scientists Overlooked?
The tribunal also noted that several Director General posts are normally held by Distinguished Scientists, although some are occupied by Scientist “H” officers due to the smaller pool of Distinguished Scientists.
Expressing surprise over Joshi’s appointment, the tribunal said:
“When the Distinguished Scientists are available, there is no question of such a post of DG being offered to Scientist H.”
Scores Tie — But Alphabetical Order Used
A total of eight scientists applied for the post — two Distinguished Scientists and six Scientist “H” officers.
According to the tribunal, Dr Naidu and Dr Manickavasagam M. — both Distinguished Scientists — scored 80 marks, the same score awarded to Dr Joshi, a Scientist “H”.
The tribunal noted:
“However, in the minutes of the Selection Committee, the names were recommended in alphabetical order, for which, no rule has been shown to us.”
The CAT’s order now puts the spotlight firmly on the Defence Ministry and DRDO, which must revisit the selection process within the stipulated four-week period. As the matter stands, the tribunal’s strong remarks on transparency, seniority, and procedural fairness have opened up wider questions about appointments to top scientific and strategic posts.
The final outcome will not only determine who leads BrahMos, but may also set a precedent for future high-level selections within India’s defence research establishment.
