KATHMANDU, March 24: As the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) prepares to form a government after securing a near two-thirds majority in the March 5 House of Representatives (HoR) elections, its leaders have pledged to revoke all political appointments made by previous governments. They have also urged those appointed through political decisions to step down.
However, the party has yet to issue a formal institutional call. According to RSP leaders, more than 1,170 political appointments have been made by past governments.
As the debate gains momentum, public administration experts caution against treating all appointments alike. They argue that appointments made through due process and merit, those made directly at the government’s discretion, and those in constitutional bodies are fundamentally different.
Ensure Merit-based Appointments
Experts stress that the government cannot simply revoke appointments of constitutional officials. Doing so would require impeachment—a process that could place the government in a far more complicated situation.
“After a major political shift, it is natural for a new government to ask appointees of the previous regime to resign to pave the way for reforms and better governance,” said former government secretary Gopi Mainali. “But such a call should have come immediately after the movement—it may already be too late.”
He warned that forcibly removing constitutional office bearers could backfire. “Except for constitutional bodies, appointees can step down on moral grounds, allowing room for fresh appointments. The government can then reappoint individuals based on merit and performance,” he added.
Former secretary Arjun Jung Thapa echoed similar views, emphasizing that constitutional and political appointments must be treated separately. While a new government can replace politically appointed individuals, he said, overturning constitutional appointments would not be appropriate.
Kashiraj Dahal, a member of the Administrative Reform Suggestion Commission formed in 2017, outlined two possible approaches. “The first is a voluntary resignation call, which is the simplest and quickest route,” he said. “The second is to follow legal procedures, including seeking clarification on performance before removal.”
However, he cautioned that the legal route carries risks, including possible court reinstatement of removed officials. “This is ultimately a matter of morality,” he added, suggesting that a phased approach may be more practical than revoking all appointments at once. “Appointments in constitutional bodies, however, can only be revoked through impeachment.”
Public administration expert Sharada Prasad Trital said such moves are expected after major political shifts. “A new government may find it difficult to function due to past political appointments and may seek to replace them. This should be seen as a natural process,” he said.
He added that even a mass revocation would not significantly disrupt government functioning. Still, he stressed that those appointed by previous governments should ideally resign voluntarily on moral grounds.
