The government has refused to appoint Murari Kharel as secretary of the National Human Rights Commission, alleging that the selection process was not transparent.

The Prime Minister’s Office rejected Kharel’s recommendation on Tuesday following the reluctance of the constitutional human rights watchdog to provide the original marking files of the candidates competing for the position. Along with Kharel, acting secretary at the commission, Yagya Adhikari and Tika Ram Pokharel, joint secretaries, were in the race for the topmost administrative position at the commission.

“The commission’s recommendation couldn’t be approved,” Lila Devi Gadtaula, secretary at the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), told the Post. “We have sent back the recommendation with some remarks.”

The decision was taken after the commission failed to comply with the PMO’s request to send the original documents with the marks the three candidates received in various categories.

The letter from the Pushpa Kamal Dahal administration said Kharel’s nomination was rejected, questioning the impartiality and transparency of the selection process.

“On reviewing the nomination, it has been found that the selection process was not fully transparent and free of controversy,” states the PMO’s letter. “Only nominations made through a transparent selection process and in line with the existing law will be entertained.”

Based on the scores given by a three-member selection committee led by its member Surya Dhungel, four of the five commissioners, including chief commissioner Top Bahadur Magar, on October 30 recommended Kharel for promotion to the post of secretary. Kashi Raj Dahal, former chief of the Administrative Court, and professor Kusum Shakya were the members of the selection committee.

The Dhungel-led committee had given equal marks to both Kharel and Yagya Adhikari, a joint-secretary at the commission. They received 67.3 each. But Kharel was recommended for the position citing his better performance during an interview and a presentation. Mihir Thakur, a commissioner, had objected to the decision.

Three days later, on November 3, he wrote a separate letter to Prime Minister Dahal, asking him to refrain from appointing Kharel as secretary, accusing him of misusing resources and engaging in irregularities at the commission. The commissioner wrote several posts on Facebook against the recommendation and has even demanded that Kharel be sacked as he had protected an official accused of sexual harassment.

Thakur has been claiming that as Kharel and Adhikari got equal marks, Adhikari should be appointed to the post due to Kharel’s involvement in controversies.

Adhikari and Tikaram Pokharel, another contender for the position, also wrote to the Prime Minister’s Office on November 6, raising questions over the pick. As a result, the Dahal administration sought the original marking files of the three candidates. The commission, however, provided only the marks each candidate obtained and a copy of the minutes that recommended Kharel for the position.

The Prime Minister’s Office again wrote to the commission seeking the document but the requested document was never provided. Gadtaula expressed surprise at the commission’s reluctance to produce the documents if the selection was done by following due process.

Adhikari and Pokharel allege that Kharel was “favoured” in the interview. “We have been raising questions over the transparency and credibility of the selection process. It is good if the authorities concerned have addressed our issues,” Adhikari told the Post.

The commission’s leadership, however, says being a constitutional body, the executive cannot ask them to disclose confidential documents. They claim that legally the government has to implement its recommendations and can request reconsideration if there are some issues. The executive cannot reject their recommendations, they claim.

Multiple attempts to get a response from Magar and Dhungel failed.

However, those who have long experiences at the commission do not buy the argument. “Yes, the executive has to implement the commission’s recommendations if they are related to human rights issues. It is wrong to say the government cannot ask questions in administrative issues like the selection of officials,” Bed Bhattarai, a former secretary at the commission, told the Post. “The commission should have made the entire selection process public for transparency. It can still do that.” 

The Prime Minister’s Office again wrote to the commission seeking the document but the requested document was never provided. Gadtaula expressed surprise at the commission’s reluctance to produce the documents if the selection was done by following due process.

Adhikari and Pokharel allege that Kharel was “favoured” in the interview. “We have been raising questions over the transparency and credibility of the selection process. It is good if the authorities concerned have addressed our issues,” Adhikari told the Post.

The commission’s leadership, however, says being a constitutional body, the executive cannot ask them to disclose confidential documents. They claim that legally the government has to implement its recommendations and can request reconsideration if there are some issues. The executive cannot reject their recommendations, they claim.

Multiple attempts to get a response from Magar and Dhungel failed.

However, those who have long experiences at the commission do not buy the argument. “Yes, the executive has to implement the commission’s recommendations if they are related to human rights issues. It is wrong to say the government cannot ask questions in administrative issues like the selection of officials,” Bed Bhattarai, a former secretary at the commission, told the Post. “The commission should have made the entire selection process public for transparency. It can still do that.”