BrahMos DG appointment: Telangana High Court stays operative portion of CAT order
The Telangana High Court has stayed the Hyderabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order that quashed the appointment of Dr Jaiteerth R. Joshi as Director General of BrahMos Aerospace. The High Court has now suspended CAT’s directions pending further hearing.
By Legal Correspondent
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Wednesday passed an interim order suspending the operation of the December 29, 2025 decision of the Hyderabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which had set aside the appointment of Dr Jaiteerth R. Joshi as Director General of BrahMos.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin stayed the operative portion of the CAT order and adjourned the matter for further hearing.
The Bench granted four weeks’ time to the respondent, Dr Sivasubramaniam Nambi Naidu, who had approached the CAT and obtained a favourable order, to file his response. An additional two weeks were granted to the petitioners, the Union of India and Dr Joshi, to file their replies.
Dr Joshi was appointed as Director General of BrahMos Aerospace on November 25, 2024. His appointment was quashed by the Hyderabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which held that there was manifest arbitrariness in the decision-making process adopted by the Centre, the Chairman of DRDO as well as other authorities.
The CAT’s order came on a petition filed by Dr Naidu, a senior scientist with the Defence Research and Development Organisation, who was one of the three shortlisted candidates for the post. His primary contention before the Tribunal was that he was senior to Dr Joshi and held the status of a distinguished scientist.
Opposing this, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta appearing virtually for the Union of India argued that both Dr Joshi and Dr Naidu held the rank of Scientist-H at the relevant time, which was the essential qualification prescribed in the advertisement.
It was contended that the selection process did not mandate preference based on seniority or the mere availability of a distinguished scientist, and that such a criterion was neither part of the notification nor the standard operating procedure.
It was further submitted that the SOP governing the appointment to the post of Director General emphasised identification of the most suitable candidate, with strong technical competence, leadership qualities and managerial capability, rather than the most senior or meritorious candidate.
Tushar Mehta pointed out that there were no allegations of favouritism or malafides raised before the Tribunal and that the appointment was made following the prescribed procedure, based on the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority.
Senior counsel S. Niranjan Reddy, appearing for Dr Joshi, submitted that the post of BrahMos Director General is a strategic and sensitive position involving national interest. He argued that merely claiming superior academic or scientific credentials does not automatically make one the most suitable candidate for the post, which demands diverse administrative and leadership skills.
Earlier, while setting aside Dr Joshi’s appointment, the CAT had directed the Centre and other authorities to reconsider Dr Naidu’s claim within four weeks and had also ordered that an in-charge, other than Dr Joshi, be appointed to head BrahMos in the interim.
The High Court stayed these directions and listed the matter for further consideration.
