By Our Reporter
The government has moved quickly to fill vacant positions across Nepal’s public institutions, presenting the process as a return to competition, merit and institutional need. But the speed of the appointments, the reappearance of previously removed office holders and questions over eligibility have created a different impression: that competition may exist on paper, while the real decisions are often made elsewhere.
The scale of the exercise is significant. On May 2, the government issued the Special Provision Ordinance on the Removal of Public Office Bearers, 2026, removing 1,534 office holders from various state institutions in a single move. Promulgated just 36 days after Prime Minister Balendra Shah took office, the ordinance amended 110 laws and opened a large number of positions across public bodies.
The government now says it has filled around 40 percent of those vacancies. According to the Prime Minister’s Office, the respective ministries are making appointments based on competition and institutional needs before reporting them to the centre. Recruitment is continuing for the remaining posts.
On the surface, that sounds like a major effort to reset public institutions. The problem is that some of those removed in the mass dismissal have already found their way back into the same institutions or similar positions. Others appointed in the latest round have faced past controversies. That has raised an obvious question: if the previous office holders had to go because the system needed a clean break, what has changed when familiar names return?
The government’s own appointment standards have added another layer of controversy. The Public Body Office Bearers and Members Appointment and Nomination Standards, 2016, set the maximum age for public office holders at 65. Yet Maheshwar Bhakta Shrestha, recently appointed chairperson of Nepal Airlines Corporation, is reportedly around 80 years old.
If the standard applies, the government must explain the appointment. If an exception is allowed, it must clearly show the legal basis. Public institutions cannot demand strict compliance from ordinary citizens while treating their own rules as flexible when a preferred candidate is involved.
The standards are otherwise quite clear. Executive heads are expected to have at least a master’s degree and five years of relevant experience, while other office bearers and board members need at least a bachelor’s degree and three years of related experience. They also set minimum and maximum age limits and disqualify individuals convicted of serious crimes, those blacklisted under prevailing laws and others who do not meet basic legal and ethical requirements.
Such standards exist for a reason. Public appointments are not private favours. They involve institutions funded by taxpayers and positions that carry authority over public money, policy and services. When the government appears to bypass or stretch its own criteria, the damage goes beyond one appointment. It weakens the credibility of the entire selection process.
The latest appointments cover a wide range of influential institutions. New heads and members have been appointed to Gorkhapatra Corporation, the National Trust for Nature Conservation, the Teachers Service Commission, Pashupati Area Development Trust, Press Council Nepal, Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal, Nepal Telecommunications Authority, Securities Board of Nepal, Railway Board, Nepal Scouts and the Electricity Regulatory Commission.
The government has also appointed vice chancellors to major universities and health science academies across the country. These are positions that directly shape higher education, healthcare and public institutions for years. They should therefore attract more scrutiny, not less.
Some cases have drawn particular attention. Dr. Ram Prasad Ghimire has been reappointed as chairperson of the Electricity Regulatory Commission, a post he also held under the previous Pushpa Kamal Dahal government. The reappointment raises questions about the purpose of the mass removal if the same individuals can return under a new political arrangement.
The July 20 appointment of Dr. Jeevan Pariyar as executive director of Civil Hospital has also sparked controversy because he had been suspended by the Nepal Medical Council in 2011 over a medical negligence case involving allegations that a patient’s uterus was removed instead of treating a throat ailment. The government may have its reasons for considering him suitable, but such cases demand transparency. A selection committee cannot simply announce a result and expect the public to ignore a candidate’s past.
The appointment of a significant number of retired civil servants has raised another concern. Experience is valuable, and retirement should not automatically disqualify someone from contributing to public life. But when retired officials repeatedly dominate positions that could go to younger professionals, the government needs to explain why open competition continues to produce the same familiar circle.
This brings us to the central problem. Nepal has a long history of public appointments being shaped by political connections, personal relationships and informal bargaining. Every new government promises to change that culture. Yet the latest developments suggest that changing the procedure is not the same as changing the practice.
An advertisement can be published. Applications can be collected. Interviews can be held. A selection committee can prepare a shortlist. But none of this proves genuine competition if the preferred candidate is already known before the process begins. Competition becomes a token exercise when institutions merely complete the formal steps needed to justify a political decision.
That is why the Shah government faces a higher burden than previous administrations. It came to power promising a break from the old system, not a more polished version of it. Citizens will judge the government not by how many vacancies it fills, but by whether qualified people without political access have a real chance to win those positions.
The answer cannot remain hidden behind claims of “competition” and “institutional need.” The government should publish selection criteria, the number of applicants, shortlists, evaluation methods and reasons for choosing the final candidate, especially in high profile appointments. Transparency should begin before the appointment, not after controversy erupts.
Otherwise, the government’s promise of reform will face the same fate as many promises before it. Nepal does not need another administration that removes political appointees in the name of change, only to replace them with its own preferred faces.
If competition is genuine, it should be visible. If merit matters, the process should prove it. And if the outcome is decided before the contest begins, then calling it competition does not make it one.
Login to add a comment