Courts cannot reassess expert selections for sensitive technical posts absent illegality, mala fides, or arbitrariness.

The post of Director General (BrahMos), a senior techno-managerial position associated with the strategically sensitive Indo-Russian BrahMos Aerospace joint venture, became vacant on 1 December 2024.

DRDO issued an in-house advertisement prescribing eligibility as: Scientist “H” or above; prior tenure as Director of a Laboratory, Programme Director or Corporate Director; and at least 12 months’ residual service, with an M.Tech./Ph.D. as a desirable qualification.

A screening committee shortlisted eligible candidates, including Dr. Sivasubramaniam Nambi Naidu and Dr. Jaiteerth Joshi. The selection committee interviewed the candidates and recommended a panel of three names in alphabetical order. All three candidates were awarded equal marks.

The Secretary, DDR&D and Chairman, DRDO selected Dr. Jaiteerth Joshi, who was transferred from DRDL, Hyderabad to the post of Director General (BrahMos) by order dated 25 November 2024.

Dr. Nambi Naidu challenged the appointment before the Central Administrative Tribunal, principally contending that, being senior and holding the higher grade of Distinguished Scientist, he ought to have been preferred over Dr. Joshi, an Outstanding Scientist.

The Tribunal set aside Dr. Joshi’s appointment and directed reconsideration of Dr. Nambi Naidu’s candidature. The Union of India and Dr. Joshi challenged that order before the High Court in W.P. Nos. 126 and 127 of 2026.

The Court applied Rule 10 of the Defence Research and Development Service Rules, 2023, which authorises the Chairman, DRDO, as Head of Service, to deploy senior scientists to designated positions in the functional interests of the organisation and Government.

It held that judicial review of expert selections is limited and that courts cannot sit as appellate authorities over the comparative assessment of candidates; interference is justified only for illegality, patent material irregularity, violation of prescribed procedure, mala fides or demonstrable arbitrariness, following Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, UPSC v. M. Sathiya Priya, M.V. Thimmaiah v. Union of India, and Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of Jammu & Kashmir.

Relying on Union of India v. S.L. Dutta, the Court emphasised judicial restraint in technical, scientific, defence and national-security matters.

It further applied the principle of “play in the joints” and deference to executive policy and administrative judgment from T.N. Education Department Ministerial & General Subordinate Services Assn. v. State of T.N.

The Court also held that an administrative selection committee is not legally required to record reasons for preferring one equally eligible candidate over another absent a statutory requirement, relying on National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman and Union of India v. Samar Singh.

Finally, under Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, a candidate who participates in a selection process without protest cannot ordinarily challenge its criteria only after being unsuccessful.

The High Court found that both Dr. Nambi Naidu and Dr. Joshi satisfied all essential qualifications in the advertisement and that neither seniority, higher pay level nor the status of Distinguished Scientist was prescribed as a criterion carrying additional weightage.

The Tribunal therefore impermissibly read an additional preference for seniority and higher grade into the advertisement and rules, and substituted its own assessment for that of the expert selection committee and the competent authority.

The record showed that all three shortlisted candidates received equal marks, making the alphabetical order of the panel merely formal and not evidence of arbitrariness.

The competent authority’s selection of Dr. Joshi was also rationally connected to the post’s functional requirements, including experience in handling foreign joint-venture projects, and no mala fides, extraneous consideration, procedural deviation or statutory violation was established.

Given the strategic and technical nature of the BrahMos programme, the Court held that heightened judicial restraint was required.

Dr. Nambi Naidu’s participation in the selection process without objection further weakened his post-selection challenge.

W.P. No. 126 of 2026 was allowed, the Tribunal’s order dated 29 December 2025 in O.A. No. 021/02253 of 2024 was set aside, and W.P. No. 127 of 2026 was likewise allowed.

Pending miscellaneous petitions were closed, with no order as to costs.