Tag Archives: Defence Research Development Organisation

DRDO chief not appointed even after three months

Abhinandan Mishra,  Sunday Guardian: August 18, 2018

 

‘Selecting a new DRDO chief has become like walking on a landmine’.

The post of the chief of Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) has been vacant for nearly three months now, courtesy the apparent pressure tactics being employed by various quarters—both from inside the government and outside it. A few posts had fallen vacant in the last week of May after the incumbent DRDO chief Selvin Christopher retired following a three-year long tenure which included a year long extension. The post of SA to RM (Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri), which was held by G. Satheesh Reddy for three years, including a year-long extension till 4 June 2018, is vacant too. DRDO chairman is also the Secretary of Defence, Research and Development.

Since the retirement of Christopher, Sanjay Mitra, a 1982 batch IAS of West Bengal cadre, is the Defence Secretary, and he is also holding the additional charge of the post of Secretary, Department of Defence Research & Development and Chairman, DRDO for a period of three months, beginning 29 May.

Official sources said that this was for the first time that the DRDO was staying headless for this long. They attributed this situation to various stakeholders who are involved in the functioning of the organisation. The DRDO has an annual budget of Rs 20,000 crore; it spends the same on the upkeep of over 50 laboratories across India.

“The post of the DRDO chief is a very coveted one and apart from merit, other factors like political interference, regional interference, import lobby and foreign vendors play a crucial role in the whole exercise. The government is not giving a very good message by displaying indecisiveness. Ideally, the next chief should have been identified and notified even before the term of the incumbent ended,” a former top official who worked with the organisation for more than three decades, said.

According to officials, selecting a new DRDO chief had become like walking on a landmine in recent times. “So many names are floating in the media; many of them are being planted by their adversaries, many by the claimants themselves. There is not a single name whose candidature will not generate controversy unlike at the time of appointment of Abdul Kalam or V.K. Aatre or V.S. Arunachalam, all of whom were well-known scientists. Earlier, the DRDO was headed by scientists who were really reputed, but now the situation has changed,” a scientist, posted with one of the DRDO laboratories, said.

Sources said that the government had come close to appointing a new chief when Selvin Christopher’s term was about to end, but at the very last moment, there was a “negative intelligence report” on the one who had been shortlisted and the whole process was abandoned.

“Prime Minister Narendra Modi had repeatedly expressed his concerns and apprehensions about the working of the DRDO. However, these concerns cannot be taken care of if the DRDO chief is appointed not because of merit, but due to his proximity to a particular minister or to a region,” the official said. In a not-so-covert hint that the organisation could be externally influenced, V.K. Aatre, who succeeded Kalam as DRDO chief, had once said that there were three non-state actors that influenced the working of DRDO: foreign vendors, mass media and the import lobby.

“If one traces back the history of the DRDO, one would come across names like Dr V.S. Arunachalam who had absolute freedom to walk into the office of successive PMs. He was close to Indira Gandhi and was able to secure a lot of money and autonomy for the organisation. Before him, we had people like Dr Daulat Singh Kothari, Professor S. Bhagavantam, Dr B.D. Nagchaudhuri, Prof M.G.K. Menon and Dr Raja Ramanna, who were scientists of international repute and were known for their work across the globe. Now it is not the same,” a senior official of the organisation said.

According to officials, the 2015 bifurcation of the post of the DRDO Chairman, Secretary of Defence, R&D and the SA to RM, which were earlier headed by the same individual, had led to two competing power centers within the organisation.

“This should not have been done as this has affected the value of the chair of the DRDO chief. Do you expect the SA to RM to give importance to the DRDO chief? Now every proposal that is brought by the DRDO is vetted by the SA to RM. There was a lot of friction between Selvin and Reddy because both of them thought they were more senior to the other,” an official of the organisation explained.

Former officials recalled how someone like Kalam, decorated with the , led the DRDO in the past. “He was the brain behind Pokhran-II; he was someone who stood shoulder to shoulder with the late Atal Bihari Vajpayee, a stalwart Prime Minister. We are missing a man like him. He needed no recommendation or political approach to become the chief of DRDO. People like Kalam had assumed a huge stature much before they had joined the DRDO,” an officer recalled.

Prime Minister’s Office Marked Rao’s Mail as `Grievance’

Mar 13 2015 : The Economic Times (Delhi)

Lands in hot water with DAE bosses for writing to PM
He wrote to the prime minister, tried to do good for a critical national project, and now he’s in trouble.
One of India’s senior nuclear scientists, Pashupati Rao, who works at Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC), run by the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), is now battling his employer for having written to the prime minister offering suggestions on streamlining the setting up of a new nuclear facility at Kota, Rajasthan. DAE comes under the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO).

ET has reviewed the relevant correspondence between the PMO, DAE and the scientist. The PMO didn’t respond to ET’s queries on this matter.Rao did not participate in this story.DAE responded to ET’s questions. On September 28, 2014, Rao sent his suggestions to PM’s official portal (pmindia.gov.in), which invites citizens to share ideas as well as to write to the Prime Minister.

But although Rao had communicated sensitive matters on the new nuclear complex, the PMO had sent them to Rao’s employer, DAE, marking them as `grievance’, and it sent a mail to Rao on January 21 this year, saying his `grievance’ has been disposed. The PMO’s communication to Rao’s employers had also given the name and designation of the scientist, thus making his full identity known to his superiors.

This started a process of DAE relentlessly asking for explanations from the scientist and the latter desperately seeking to explain himself. Some DAE officials who did not want to be identified told ET that Rao may face serious consequences.

Prominent whistleblower Prabhu Dandriyal, who some years ago had claimed to have exposed corruption in Defence Research & Development Organisation, filed a Right to Information application on January 27 this year with the PMO on Rao’s matter.

Dandriyal had asked what guidelines the PMO follows when dealing with `sensitive’ communication from government officials. He said the PMO reply that came a month later, on February 27, said the request is being processed, and de tails are being collected.

Rao’s suggestions sent to the prime minister on the Kota project contained, apart from technical details on cutting costs, a proposal that an independent team be appointed to review the project.

BUREAUCRATIC NIGHTMARE

But the PMO sending his suggestions as `grievance’ to DAE has put the top nuclear scientist in a bureaucratic nightmare.The PMO’s communications were sent to NFC, Hyderabad, where Rao worked, and his superiors have turned the matter into `staff grievance’ and have been seeking explanations from Rao.

In a series of communications, Rao tried to explain that he did not have any personal grievance.

“I am a successful officer and I have been awarded with DAE group achievement award for indigenisation associated work. My feedback given to the PMO which is converted as my grievance is not aimed at any individual,“ the scientist wrote in one of his attempts to explain himself. However, DAE has not relented and on February 10, Rao received a letter from the Grievance Redressal Committee that reminded him his job was limited to helping in the maintenance of NFC.et clip

“As an organisation, we will follow the process. As he is a staff member, it is being treated as a staff grievance and is being looked into,“ S Goverdhan Rao, deputy chief executive of NFC, told ET.

Dandriyal, who’s still awaiting a full reply from PMO, said, “It will be very difficult for people from the system to come out and expose corruption and inefficiency if there is no mechanism to protect them.“

Incurring the DRDO’s rath

It should disturb us all gravely that a motorised battery-powered chariot is the level of “technology” the DRDO feels proud to pass on.
25-11-2014
SHIV AROOR @shivaroor

I love this story. Everything about it numbs the brain. What I love best about it is that nobody could have made this up: An Indian military laboratory tucked away in a leafy Pune neighbourhood, tasked with building combat support vehicles, has built and supplied a gleaming battery-powered rath to the grateful Alandi Temple nearby. Correct. A chariot. For a temple. You see what I mean? Can’t make this stuff up.

Details sometimes kill a great story. In this case, they really crank up the W-T-F value.

The story emerged on the front pages of the New Indian Express which reported that the rath was built at a cost of Rs five crore and “donated” to the temple. The laboratory reportedly explained that the work was done as “seva” and that a scientist who apparently blew the whistle on what he felt was a totally improper use of public money and laboratory resources, was shunted and buried in a lower profile role in Nashik. The clincher now, the NIE report says, is that the Bombay High Court has stepped in and ordered the DRDO and MoD to explain what this rath business is all about. I know nothing beyond what’s been reported, so I decided to poke around. When I called a DRDO spokesperson asking him what the fuss was about, he fobbed me off. “It was done as seva. What is wrong if some military research helps some civilian cause also?” he asked. Well, plenty, I thought, but decided to sit on it. Let’s see just how farcical this can get. Other than a little hilarity and outrage on Twitter, the story hasn’t turned too many people on. That may change if the DRDO decides to officially comment.

First off, only an idiot would hope to find any justification at all for a public-funded combat vehicle research lab spending any resources (money, man-hours that could be better spent, materials, electricity) on a rath. Second, excuses like “seva” etc don’t hold. If the rath project eats into laboratory time or resources even slightly, it’s unacceptable. Period. Three, inappropriate diversions of this kind are an insult to the hundreds of DRDO scientists actually doing stellar, quality military research, even at the same laboratory. Indulgences of this kind hurt the reputations of scientists who have to work harder just to make up for the incompetence, laziness and vacuous sahib culture of their colleagues. Finally (and this is my favourite reason) it should disturb us all gravely that a motorised battery-powered chariot is the level of “technology” the DRDO is dabbling with and feels proud to pass on. As someone on Twitter pointed out to me, a small group of engineering kids could have built the thing in two months or less. (Less. Definitely less. Have you seen the stuff engineering students make these days?)

The Bombay High Court has better things to do than intervene in preposterous issues of this kind, but I for one would love to know how this one plays out, especially since the DRDO chief himself has been asked to explain. The DRDO chief is a good man, a strong missile scientist, who I hope will send out the right message. Because for far too long, the DRDO has gotten away never having to explain itself, always shielding itself with a pretend-patriotic forcefield, crying foul at the slightest criticism and accusing its detractors of being anti-nationals.

“Not just high-altitude chikki”. That was the title of the final column I wrote for the Indian Express before I left in 2007. The column welcomed a rare formal awakening within the government about the need to completely overhaul and reinvent India’s doddering, plagued and villified Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO). The government’s decision to find ways to kick the DRDO into a shape was, if not directly a result of, at least catalysed by a relentless eight-part series that the Express had frontpaged just days earlier, carefully picking apart the breathtaking incompetence and sense of entitlement that had allowed the DRDO to balloon into a nightmarishly out-of-control and wasteful organisation. The title of my parting column was a reference to the mind-boggling products the DRDO found (sigh, and still finds) the need to expend its energies on, instead of focusing on giving India its basic weapons. (The DRDO’s Defence Food Research Laboratory in Mysore actually researches, among other things, stabilised chikki and cashewnut burfi for troops at high altitude). DRDO chief at the time M Natarajan had written an letter to all employees asking them not to be affected by the “malicious news columns” that seek “distract us from our goal of self-reliance”.

Comment Writing about DRDO for almost exactly ten years now, the one thing I’ve noticed is that hilarity about its misadventures always diffuses into anger. The truth is, the organisation has nobody but itself to blame. Earlier this year, Prime Minister Modi chastised the DRDO at a public event, informing it that the world wouldn’t wait for it, and that delays in crucial weapons projects was unacceptable. The DRDO has enjoyed “friendly” defence ministries in the past, notably under AK Antony. Modi has signalled that the time for fun and games is over. The message is simple: That’s public money you’re using. Soldiers need the stuff you make. You don’t have a moment or a rupee to waste. Get your shit together. Now.

Why do people want to go private organizations? Is it because they do good work and they are rewarded? Do you have any method of incentives for good work done by scientists? Please elaborate – (CC R&D HR)

As per the reply in Parliament ( LOK SABHA) against UNSTARRED QUESTION NO 596, ANSWERED ON 09.12.2013, the total 487 scientists left from DRDO from 2008 to 30th November 2013. Scientist B- 289, Scientist C- 152, Scientist D – 26, Scientist E-  13, Scientist F – 7.

Why they left – Financial reasons – very few, most young scientists join this great premier scientific organization with great enthusiasm that they will contribute their best to serve the nation, but unfortunately they encounter incompetent, greedy, bosses who got these higher posts on the basis of flattering/corruption /nepotism.

Examples are numerous but this is one real reason I grew up in a small town called ———— and my father works for ——. All my childhood I spent in scientific community and I dreamt of becoming a scientist one day. I did that and I ignored offers from private sector and Joined DRDO.

The establishment that I joined promised me excellent work in my field of analysis and designing. At 21, I joined and things of course were very indifferent to what I dreamt of.

We had bureaucracy and people were not happy. The organization was something like a hierarchy controlled rather than intellectual oriented. I had an excellent team and my STA’s are one of the best. People never cared to harness their potential. Have no idea why.

Most of the works that we were supposed to do were outsourced; this is one thing that I fought with everybody. I did not want to work for my salary; I wanted to work for pleasure.

Finally, my team was able to deliver some engineering marvels that my superiors said it was impossible to do. My growing frustration with outsourcing was a big issue for me. A single step ahead in the project is like fighting with in.

After 5 years of service, I came to US to pursue my further studies.”

The absolute power to Lab Directors is also a big reason to derail the organizations.

The training of young scientist started with collecting quotations, making specifications, filing indents of not required instruments & items on direction of their bosses to get good APAR and promotions. If the scientist not compromise with his integrity for helping out the corruption of his bosses and Director, then immediately his harassment started by all means including transfers.

One scientist from GTRE, Bangalore genuinely approached the Director for his transfer but the egoist Director after receiving transfer order from DRDO Hqrs told him “ I will see who is going to relieve you if you pressurized me. Your dead body only can only be relieved” It is not a joke and this is the real scenario of DRDO.

The individual  ask transfer without having GOD father in DRDO always get same treatment, his carrier start spoiling by Lab Directors, if Lab Directors is annoyed with any individual of lab means he will going to face social boycott by  whole lab because one try to help him means he will also come under threat zone. Targeted individual start facing each and every step of his day to day work like NO TD, No support for project work, no recommendation for good work, APAR/ACR dropped to average and many more obstacles are common.

If Lab Director sniff that the individual is watching corruption or raising voice for that, it means that that individual is now going to get a kick without following the rules to remotest area with instruction that make sure that this man does not get peace at all.

DRDO has an unwritten thumb rule that when any Lab Director is not happy with any individual it means that he must be transferred to other destination without justifying the reason and the best part of this is that entire DRDO HQRS backsthat egoist corrupt director. This has resulted in the DRDO we know today.

All 25 questions raised by the Cabinet/PMO / Parliament Committee are really the honest approach to make DRDO a productive organization. DRDO is wasting more than two lakh crores worth of infrastructure without any mentionable output. DRDO should accept Genral Mallik’s comment after KARGIL WARcasualties in the conflict could have been reduced had the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) not come in the way.

Unfortunately, DRDO still does not understand the importance of the country’s needs. It still wastes money on SDR type of technologies, which already exist, and DRDO is ready to give second extension for PDC, like Sh R C Agarwal, who got a second extension without output.

It is requested DRDO Hqrs now Modi Ji giving full opportunity to save and grow DRDO in real means, अब तो जागो औरभ्रष्टाचार, भाई भतीजावाद, अयोग्य लोगो को आगे बढ़ाने का कार्य बंद करो।  देश के विकास की और देखो।  जय हिन्द 

DR Gausal Khan’s, DIPAS representation also throws light of DRDO culture please go through the following pages.

Page - 1
Page – 1
Page - 2
Page – 2
Page -3
Page -3

No extensions sans ACC okay: Government to DRDO

By Aman Sharma, ET Bureau | 27 Sep, 2014,

NEW DELHI: In a message to the Defence Research Development Organisation that has over a dozen scientists working on tenures beyond 60, the government has frowned at the tendency of giving extensions to scientists without consulting the Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC).

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is said to be unhappy with DRDO’s functioning and had recently advocated that five out of the 52 DRDO labs be manned by young scientists after reports with the government revealed that as many as 358 scientists had quit DRDO between 2009 and 2013.

A government note sent on Friday to nine ministries and departments which have specialists in scientific or medical fields, including DRDO and Department of Space, the Department of Personnel and Training has said that the ACC headed by the prime minister has observed that in some cases, departments have unilaterally extended the service officers beyond the age of superannuation without obtaining the approval of ACC.

“It is reiterated that in absence of specific approval of ACC towards extension of services beyond the date of superannuation, an officer should stand retired on his date of superannuation and under no circumstances should the Ministry/Department extend his services beyond superannuation unilaterally without approval of ACC,” the note says. This also comes on the heels of the success of the Mars Orbiter Mission where Modi had praised scientists at ISRO for the feat.

In Friday’s note, the policy drawn up by the NDA government in 2002 was pointed to, which said that any tenure extensions to scientists should be “only in really exceptional circumstances” and only if the retiring specialist “is not just one of the outstanding officers but is really head and shoulders above the rest”.

That policy also said that too many cases of extensions are likely to cause “frustration and affect morale of upcoming scientists who have exposure to latest technological developments.” In 2012, DRDO admitted that 37 scientists — 12 of whom were in distinguished category — were on extended tenures. This was despite the Rama Rao Committee, which carried out the first external review of DRDO in 2008, calling for a younger profile of top scientists. DRDO secretary Avinash Chander is also working on an extension.

ET had reported on August 23 that Modi was not happy about this situation and had sought all details after he was told about the high attrition rate among younger scientists. Friday’s note also goes out to the departments of Atomic Energy, Science and Technology, Scientific and Industrial Research, Information Technology and Environment Ministry.extension dopt

RTI- Cabinet Secretariat – Shri Avinash Chander’s Contractual Appointment

To                                                        1st August 2014
Shri Rajesh Nagpal,
Under Secretary & CPIO,
Cabinet Secretariat,
Rashtrapati Bhawan,
New Delhi-110 004

Hello,

Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of Para (2) of appointment letter No. I2/9/2013-EO (SM.I) dated 31st May 2013 regarding appointment of Shri Avinash Chander, Distinguished Scientist & Chief Controller Research & Development (Missiles &Strategic Systems), DRDO as Secretary, Department of Defence Research & Development-cum-Director General, Defence Research and Development Organisation and Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri for a period of three years. “The appointment of Shri Avinash Chander beyond his date of retirement i.e. 30.1 1.2014, would be on contract basis with the same terms and conditions as he would be entitled to Secretary (DRD) before the date of retirement”.(Copy Annexed)

  1. Provide copy of Contract Agreement between Government of India and Shri Avinash Chander for the reemployment on contract basis during the period 01 Dec 2014 to 31 May 2016.
  2. Provide provisions and rules of Government of India under which Shri Avinash Chander was appointed on contract basis as Secretary, Department of Defence Research & Development-cum-Director General, Defence Research and Development Organisation and Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri after his normal retirement and completion of two extensions upto the age of 64 Years.
  3. Whether an official appointed on contract after retirement can function as Head of Office for all administrative & financial matters in the department.(Yes/No)
  4. File noting for appointment of Shri Avinash Chander as Secretary, Department of Defence Research & Development-cum-Director General, Defence Research and Development Organisation and Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri.
  5. Whether appointment after age of 64 years violates provisions of FR 56(d). (Yes/No)
Regards
Prabhu  Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun
Ph   0135 2787750, Mobile 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website   www.corruptionindrdo.com

Registration Number     CABST/R/2014/60302sa-appointment-letter6 CPC HAG Recomguideline of contract appointmentguideline of contract appointment page2guideline of contract appointment page3guideline of contract appointment page4contract appointment agreement page1contract appointment agreement page2contract appointment agreement page3contract appointment agreement page4

Bangalore: DRDO bleeds as scientists desert organisation in droves

Monday, 24 February 2014 – 7:32pm IST | Place: Bangalore | Agency: DNA

DNA Correspondent

Young scientists are leaving India’s premier defence research agency in large numbers.

Defence Research Development Organisation (Drdo), responsible for developing indigenous defence systems, has not been able to retain its young scientists over the last seven years or so.

Close to 1,000 scientists have resigned from Drdo since 2007, but it is the exit of young scientists (Scientist ‘B’ and Scientist ‘C’ grades) that is a cause of concern.

The scientists in these grades are critical for research and development of a number of indigenous defence projects in areas such as aeronautics, armaments, combat vehicles, electronics and missiles.

Between 2007 and 2009, around 285 scientists in ‘B’ grade and 162 in ‘C’ resigned. Over the next four years, between 2010 and 2013, there was a small drop as 162 in grade ‘B’ and 77 in ‘C’ resigned.

The flight of the younger scientists is in complete contrast to the resignation to the senior scientists in ‘D’, ‘E’, ‘F’ ‘G’ ‘Outstanding’ ‘Distinguished’ categories, as between 2007 and 2013 only 86 resigned.

Following the high attrition rate in 2012, mainly due to availability better opportunities and incentives in the private sector, the ministry of defence (MoD) announced a few incentives and corrective measures to retain scientists.

The measures included two additional increments on promotion to each Grade, up to six variable increments on promotion granted on fast track, professional update allowance to all scientists, fast track promotions through assessments, opportunity to acquire higher qualifications at reputed institutes viz. IIT`s / IISc, etc. as Drdo sponsored candidate, young Scientists, Scientist of the Year and other Drdo awards in recognition to their contributions and creation of excellent infrastructure facilities at work places and residential complexes.

The incentives, however, have not been able to stop the exodus. Defence minister AK Antony said in Parliament recently that ‘personal and for pursuing higher studies’ as the reason for the scientists leaving the organisation.

Drdo has a sanctioned strength of 7,500 and is currently short of a few hundred scientists.

डिफेंस रिसर्च डेवलपमेंट ऑर्गेनाइजेशन (डीआरडीओ) से छिन सकता है नियुक्ति का अधिकार

  • वैज्ञानिकों की नियुक्तियों में धांधली की शिकायतों के मद्देनजर रक्षा मंत्रालय कर रहा विचार

देहरादून: डिफेंस रिसर्च डेवलपमेंट ऑर्गेनाइजेशन (डीआरडीओ) से वैज्ञानिकों की नियुक्ति का अधिकार छिन सकता। पिछले कुछ समय में ऑर्गेनाइजेशन के रिक्रूटमेंट एसेसमेंट सेंटर की नियुक्तियों पर खड़े हुए सवाल को देखते हुए रक्षा मंत्रालय इस दिशा में तेजी से प्रयासरत है। बहुत संभव है कि यह अधिकार संघ लोक सेवा आयोग (यूपीएससी) को मिल सकता है। ऑप्टिक्स व इलेक्ट्रॉऑप्टिक्स सम्मेलन में शामिल होने दून आए डीआरडीओ प्रमुख ने इस बात के संकेत दिए। वर्ष 1984 तक डीआरडीओ में वैज्ञानिकों की नियुक्ति यूपीएससी के माध्यम से ही होती थी। मगर, इसके बाद यह जिम्मा ऑर्गेनाइजेशन के रिक्रूटमेंट एसेसमेंट सेंटर ने अपने हाथ ले लिया। सेंटर के माध्यम से निचले स्तर से लेकर वरिष्ठ वैज्ञानिकों की नियुक्ति की जाती है और नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया में संगठन के वैज्ञानिक ही शामिल रहते हैं। पिछले कुछ समय में वैज्ञानिकों की नियुक्ति को लेकर धांधली के कई आरोप लगे। सेंट्रल विजिलेंस कमीशन (सीवीसी) ने मामले की जांच कर रक्षा मंत्रालय  को रिपोर्ट दी। जिसमें कमीशन ने नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया पर इंडियन इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ पब्लिक एडमिनिस्ट्रेशन, इंडियन इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ मैनजमेंट, इंडियन एडमिनिस्ट्रेटिव स्टाफ कालेज, एक्सएलआरआइ जमशेदपुर जैसे चोटी के संस्थानों से सलाह लेकर पूरा ब्योरा यूपीएससी के सम्मुख रखने का सुझाव दिया। डीआरडीओ के महानिदेशक अविनाश चन्दर ने कहा कि इस दिशा में बहुत जल्द यूपीएससी के चेयरमैन या अन्य अधिकारी डीआरडीओ की नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया का आंकलन करने पहुंचेंगे। इसके बाद रक्षा मंत्रालय तय करेगा कि नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया में किस तरह का फेरबदल किया जाना है।

Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO)  may lose the right to appointment of scientists
Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO) may lose the right to appointment of scientists