The Federal Civil Service Bill is being deliberated by the State Affairs and Good Governance Committee of the House of Representatives (HoR). However, discussions are moving at a snail’s pace. The bill, which was registered in the HoR on March 4, 2024 (Falgun 21, 2080), has not yet undergone clause-by-clause discussions.

When I was in the National Assembly, I met the then-Minister for Federal Affairs and General Administration, Aman Lal Modi, in his office and urged him to register the bill in the National Assembly. I assured him that we would complete the clause-by-clause discussions within the provisional timeline of six months and send it to the HoR.

The National Assembly has a Legislation Management Committee, of which I was a member. The primary responsibility of this committee is to deliberate on bills. Given the critical nature of the Federal Civil Service Bill, all committee members were committed to passing it. During Modi’s tenure, the bill was almost ready to be registered in the Parliament.

However, the ministry later decided not to trust the National Assembly. When Anita Devi from the Janamat Party assumed her ministerial role, the bill was registered in the HoR instead. A government secretary confided in me that the ministry was concerned about my influence as a member of the Legislative Management Committee. I had strongly opposed several government bills that encroached upon the rights of provincial and local governments. This likely led to the ministry’s decision to bypass the National Assembly. Several external factors, rather than the minister, could have influenced the registration of the bill in the HoR.

Registering the bill solely in the HoR delays the process. Committee meetings in the HoR often fail to meet the quorum, as Members of Parliament frequently attend to their constituencies. Even in Kathmandu, they are occupied with ministries and agencies for various plans and programmes.

Unlike the National Assembly, no provisions exist in the HoR committees regarding the timeline for completing clause-by-clause discussions on bills. As a result, discussions on the Federal Civil Service Bill have not started even after nearly a year of registration. Had it been registered in the National Assembly, everything would have likely been completed and forwarded to the HoR. Recently, a dispute between Chairperson Ramhari Khatiwoda and member Hridayaram Thani arose in the State Affairs and Good Governance Committee regarding the urgency of the bill-making process, among other issues.

In the previous HoR, bills related to banks, financial institutions, securities and the Nepal Rastra Bank remained pending in the Finance Committee for three years. These bills became inactive due to the new HoR election. Therefore, to expedite legislative processes, bills should originate in the National Assembly, and the government must consider this seriously.

The Civil Service Bill was one of the 12 bills registered in Parliament during the first parliamentary term on February 10, 2019, and was withdrawn nearly three years later by the government on September 18, 2021. Discussions on the bill began in the State Affairs and Good Governance Committee of the HoR on February 18, 2019, and the committee presented it to the Parliament on April 5, 2021. Over two years, the committee held 61 meetings concerning the bill. Unfortunately, all these efforts have proven futile, as the bill is now being reconsidered from scratch.

The absence of a Federal Civil Service Law has left the country’s civil service in disarray, affecting administrative operations even at the ward level. In a statement before the parliamentary committee, Madhav Prasad Regmi, the Chairperson of the Public Service Commission, suggested that provincial secretaries and chief administrative officers of local governments must be federal employees. This perspective contradicts both the constitution and existing laws.

News reports highlight that the Chairperson’s recommendations ignore the fundamental constitutional principle of dividing state powers among the federal, provincial and local levels. The constitution clearly defines executive, legislative and judicial powers in its schedules. It explicitly states that executive powers at the provincial level lie with the provincial council of ministers, and, at the local level, with the village or municipal executive bodies.

Furthermore, the Employee Adjustment Act states that once employees are adjusted and provinces enact laws, the positions of provincial secretaries and local employees will be governed by provincial laws. It is unfortunate that the Chairperson of the Public Service Commission has created confusion in the parliamentary committee by disregarding these constitutional and legal provisions.

Article 244 of the constitution mandates the establishment of a Provincial Public Service Commission (PPSC) in each province. Provincial laws govern the formation, functions, duties and rights of these commissions, while the federal parliament sets the necessary bases and standards. Accordingly, the Federal Parliament enacted the Provincial Public Service Commission (Bases and Standards Determination) Act 2018 (2075 BS), following which all seven provinces established their respective PPSCs under the act.

These commissions are entrusted with ensuring transparency and fairness in recruiting qualified candidates for provincial civil services, police services and other governmental entities. Their merit-based recruitment process enhances public administration, making it more efficient, capable and service-oriented.

Despite limited physical, financial and human resources, the PPSCs have achieved commendable results. For example, the Gandaki Province Public Service Commission has recommended 2,933 candidates for open and inclusive categories and 479 candidates for promotions. Notably, PPSCs have successfully recommended appointments to high-level positions equivalent to joint secretary, qualifying individuals to serve as secretaries in provincial ministries.

However, the proposed Federal Civil Service Bill contradicts these achievements. Clauses 116 and 118 of the bill stipulate that federal employees will occupy provincial secretary and chief administrative officer (CAO) positions for the next 10 years. This provision undermines the principles of federalism, violates the constitution and disregards the Employee Adjustment Act, 2075. Clause 11(3) of the act explicitly states that positions of provincial secretaries will automatically fall under provincial civil service once they are filled per provincial laws.

Regarding CAOs at the local level, Clause 10 of the Employee Adjustment Act specifies that until provincial laws are enacted, the federal government may assign CAOs to local governments. Once these laws are enacted, as per Article 227 of the constitution, local government employees will fall under provincial jurisdiction. Despite this, the federal government continues interfering, often prioritising its authority over constitutional mandates.

Federal employees deployed as provincial secretaries and local CAOs frequently exhibit accountability to the federal government rather than the provinces or local governments they serve. Their frequent and unpredictable transfers destabilise provincial and local administrations. Provincial and local government representatives, including chief ministers, are often unaware of these transfers.

The proposed bill’s provision granting federal control over secretaries and CAOs undermines the PPSCs and disregards their achievements. Provinces have proven capable of managing these responsibilities independently. Instead of centralising authority, the federal government should support PPSCs in overcoming resource limitations and enhancing institutional capacities. The version presented by the Public Service Commission Chair contradicts constitutional principles and the Employee Adjustment Act, threatening federalism’s foundation. Nepal’s federal model relies on provincial and local autonomy. Lawmakers must revisit these provisions, uphold constitutional principles, and empower PPSCs to ensure effective governance at the subnational level.