A Reform Nepal Has Already Begun
This submission examines the Federal Civil Service Bill, now driven forward by the Ministry of Land Management, Cooperatives, Federal Affairs and General Administration and standing closer to enactment than at any point in its long history, currently before Nepal’s Parliament. It puts forward a specific institutional design, departmentalization through a ministerial cadre system, as the reform best suited to close a structural gap that has constrained Nepal’s civil service for decades. The bill has not yet become settled law. Major formalities have already been completed with the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and the Ministry of Finance, and the draft is expected to proceed through the Public Service Commission and the Cabinet before returning to Parliament for final passage. Several provisions, particularly those governing service structure, vacancy governance, inclusion, career progression, and retirement, remain open to negotiation and amendment.

This analysis speaks to government and political leaders, to the members of the House of Representatives and the National Assembly, to the Ministry of Land Management, Cooperatives, Federal Affairs and General Administration and the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, to the Public Service Commission, and to the civil servants, subnational governments, academicians and researchers, political parties, professional associations, and development partners who hold a genuine stake in what this law finally delivers. It offers evidence and recommendations, not a retrospective account of a reform already concluded.

A state earns public trust through the ability of its institutions to turn political decisions into real results for people. That ability depends heavily on one design choice, whether the civil service is built to let expertise grow over a career or is repeatedly reset through rotation and transfer. Countries that get this choice right tend to govern better across most areas of public life. Nepal, a federal republic with a civil service tradition going back to the mid-twentieth century, has already gotten this choice right within several of its own services. The bill now close to Parliament is the tool through which that success could finally reach further.

Departmentalization, as used in this submission, means a complete institutional structure running the full length of a career, from recruitment through retirement. It is a professional cadre system in which recruitment, career development, and promotion are organized around defined functional fields, including public finance and accounts, economic policy, planning, personnel administration, revenue administration, judicial service, engineering, audit, enforcement, ethics and integrity, anti-corruption work, and foreign affairs, while still allowing controlled and appropriately limited movement across ministries, institutions, and levels of government. This differs from permanently confining an official to one ministry or one institution. It also differs from the common practice of rotating officials across unrelated sectors without regard to their education, experience, training, demonstrated interest, accumulated expertise, institutional memory, or documented contribution. This distinction matters. It should serve as the standard against which the bill’s provisions on service structure are ultimately read and applied.

Existing Institutional Capacity and Its Limits
Nepal’s own civil service already gives clear proof that career specialization can work within its own legal and institutional framework. The Civil Service Act, 2049 (1993) establishes ten services, each organized into distinct functional groups. These are the Nepal Administration Service, made up of General Administration, Accounts, Revenue, and Cooperatives, the Nepal Auditing Service, the Nepal Judicial Service, covering justice, government attorney work, and law, the Nepal Foreign Service, the Nepal Agricultural Service, spanning agronomy, horticulture, plant protection, fishery, and livestock development, the Nepal Engineering Service, spanning civil, electrical, mechanical, sanitary, and architectural disciplines, the Nepal Forest Service, the Nepal Education Service, the Nepal Economic Planning and Statistics Service, and the Nepal Miscellaneous Service (Government of Nepal, 1993). Alongside these, the Nepal Army, the Nepal Police, the Armed Police Force, and the National Investigation Department operate under their own separate legal and institutional systems, each with long-standing traditions of internal specialization. These structures differ from one another in design, but taken together they prove one point beyond argument, that Nepal’s public administration has the demonstrated ability to sustain long-term professional careers even in functionally complex work.

The Judicial Service, whose officers may be posted across a wide range of government offices nationwide while carrying out legal, judicial, and law-related functions wherever they are assigned, and who may advance to the rank of Secretary within the Judicial Service itself or into judicial appointment without ever surrendering that specialized identity, stands as one of the clearest examples of this capacity. The Accounts group within the Nepal Administration Service offers an equally clear example. Officers in this group, through the rank of undersecretary, retain a defined professional identity in public financial management and accounting even while being posted across different institutions and levels of government. This confirms that specialization does not require confining an official inside a single ministry, or even a single type of office, for an entire career, a finding that should directly shape how mobility provisions are written into the pending bill.

At the same time, this record raises a question worth debating honestly within the drafting process, whether limiting recognized specialization to the undersecretary level still serves the nation well, or whether financial management and accounting expertise now needs to reach further into senior leadership, given the growing role of artificial intelligence and digitally enabled public service platforms in reshaping how financial management, revenue administration, and accounting functions are performed, monitored, and delivered to citizens at every level of government.

This existing strength sits alongside one clear and fixable weakness that deserves direct attention from the drafting committee and Parliament. Departmentalization, meaning a working ministerial cadre system, is not applied evenly across the ten services, and the gap is widest inside the Nepal Administration Service itself. A joint secretary in the general administration service, for example, may be posted in sequence as a chief district officer, then as the chief administrative officer of a local government, then abroad as a consul general or minister at a diplomatic mission, then back home as director general of the Department of Labour or land administration, then as a joint secretary at the national anti-corruption agency, then heading a tax or customs office, then in a foreign aid coordination role, then in a gender focused assignment at a ministry responsible for women’s affairs, then at a cooperatives agency, then at a commerce related body, and possibly later at the Election Commission or elsewhere, before retiring. This pattern raises a plain and fair question. What real expertise does an officer moved this often actually carry from one posting into the next, and what can he realistically contribute at each stop, given how frequent and unpredictable these transfers are. That question, more than any theory, is the strongest reason departmentalization is needed now.

A second, closely related weakness shows up at the point of promotion to Joint Secretary and recurs with even greater consequence at the point of promotion to Secretary. Officers who have built real functional specialization, whether within the accounts or revenue groups of general administration or within education and comparable specialized tracks, are systematically stripped of that specialization upon reaching these senior ranks and folded back into an undifferentiated generalist pool. This happens right at the career stage where accumulated technical competence and institutional judgment should matter most, the level where policy is shaped, resources are allocated, and consequential administrative decisions are made. This outcome runs directly against the whole logic of specialization, and it wastes human capital the state spent years building. Fixing this single point of transition is a comparatively low-cost, high-value legislative step, well within the reach of the drafters of the current bill, and one that would not require redesigning the broader civil service architecture.

None of this should be read as an attack on the prevailing practice of Nepal’s civil service, still less on the institution itself. Every one of Nepal’s ten services, specialized and general alike, carries some measure of internal frustration, uneven morale, and the ordinary friction found in any large bureaucracy built up across many generations. A good share of these difficulties trace not to the underlying design of specialization but to how it has actually been managed and administered in practice, gaps in consistent implementation, uneven enforcement of career rules, and administrative decisions that have not always kept pace with the system’s original intent. This is not an argument against specialization. It is a reminder that these are long-standing institutions staffed by career professionals who deserve fair, evidence-based management, not blind praise and not blanket criticism. Whatever final shape the bill takes, its drafters should hold to this standard consistently, treating no existing specialized service as beyond scrutiny and none as unworthy of the credit it has earned.

The evidence assembled here supports two related conclusions, each carrying direct implications for how Parliament should approach the bill now before it.

First, Nepal has already shown, through the Judicial Service, the Foreign Service, the Audit Service, and the Accounts and Revenue groups within general administration, among others, that focused professional career paths are not a distant aspiration but a proven operational reality within Nepal’s own legal and institutional framework. The country does not need to test whether specialization can work here. It already has, for decades, across multiple services, under real political and administrative conditions, and across changes of government, economic cycles, and periods of national stress. This is a settled fact of Nepal’s own administrative history, not a hypothesis awaiting evidence.

Second, the real question before Parliament is not whether such structures can succeed in Nepal, since that question has already been answered by Nepal’s own record, but how far this same, already proven principle should now be extended into general administration and other domains of comparable national weight, the very functions that carry the greatest responsibility for the country’s national security, fiscal discipline, development performance, investment climate, diplomatic standing, and long-term economic direction. These are not peripheral government functions. They are the functions through which national budgets are executed, development projects are managed, public services are delivered, revenue is collected and protected, borders are secured, foreign relations are conducted, and public resources are converted into results citizens can actually see. A civil service that lets hard-won expertise wither away in precisely these domains does not merely underperform on paper. It imposes a real, measurable cost on the nation’s security, its economic performance, and its standing among development partners and the wider international community, a cost that in the end falls on every citizen who depends on the state to deliver competently, safely, and on time.

Two specific structural gaps stand between Nepal’s proven capacity for specialization and its full realization across the civil service, and both fall squarely within the drafting committee’s power to fix through this bill.

The first is the pattern of unanchored, unpredictable rotation and transfer that continues to govern careers within general administration, a pattern that systematically prevents expertise from accumulating even where officers show clear aptitude, sustained interest, and documented performance in a given functional field. Under the present arrangement, building institutional knowledge is treated as incidental rather than as a deliberate goal of personnel management, so competence built over years of service gets routinely discarded through reassignment instead of being put to work where it would deliver the greatest return.

The second is the systematic loss of specialization at the point of posting and promotion to senior rank, occurring exactly at the career stage where the state stands to gain the most from an officer’s accumulated technical knowledge, sound judgment, and institutional memory, and exactly the stage at which that knowledge is currently thrown away through reabsorption into an undifferentiated generalist pool. This is not simply an administrative inefficiency. It is a structural design flaw with direct consequences for the quality and consistency of senior decision making across government.

Closing these two gaps would not require Nepal to build a new administrative philosophy from scratch. It would require Parliament to extend, deliberately and by considered design, a principle that Nepal’s own institutions, through the Judicial Service, the Foreign Service, the Audit Service, and the Revenue and Accounts group, have already proven sound. The task before the drafting committee and Parliament is one of institutional consolidation, not invention, extending a proven domestic model to the domains where it is still absent, and finally granting it the statutory discipline and legal permanence it has so far been denied.

Comparative Institutional Design
Looking at other countries is useful, not because any single model can be lifted and placed into Nepal, but because it shows that several structurally different systems have each solved the specialization problem within their own constitutional and administrative settings. Nine models in particular deserve close attention.

The United Kingdom runs what may be called a cross-government professional model, in which the civil service is organized around functional professions, including economics, finance, statistics, engineering, and policy, that move as coherent units across departmental lines rather than resetting with each transfer (Civil Service Careers, n.d.). Professional identity in this system attaches to a field of expertise rather than to any single ministry, letting accumulated competence travel with the officer throughout a career.

India runs a dual-track constitutional cadre model, combining the constitutionally entrenched All India Services, set up under Article 312 of the Constitution of India, with a much larger family of Central Civil Services covering administration, police, revenue, foreign affairs, forestry, and related fields (Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, n.d.). This architecture embeds specialization directly into constitutional design, giving it a degree of legal permanence that ordinary statute cannot easily match.

The United States relies on an agency-based occupational model, in which specialization is organized mainly around individual federal agencies and formal job classifications rather than around one unified, government-wide cadre system. Expertise accumulates within institutional boundaries defined by agency mission rather than by a cross-cutting professional identity.

Germany operates a ministry-anchored professional model, built on a strong legal and administrative tradition in which civil servants typically qualify through structured legal, technical, or administrative training tracks and build deep, sustained careers within a specific ministry or functional domain, supported by a career civil service system that places heavy weight on formal qualification, procedural rigor, and long-term institutional continuity.

China runs a performance-linked cadre management model, jointly overseen by the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security and the Organization Department of the Communist Party of China, in which officials are channeled into specialized administrative, technical, and economic management tracks and advanced through structured, multi-stage evaluation tied to demonstrated performance, with specialization reinforced through sustained tenure in related functional and regional assignments over a career (Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security of the People’s Republic of China and Organization Department of the Communist Party of China, n.d.).

Japan operates a ministry-based career bureaucrat model, in which entrants are recruited directly into individual ministries and typically build their entire careers within that ministry’s own policy domain, developing deep sectoral expertise in fields such as finance, trade, or infrastructure that is reinforced, not diluted, through internal postings across that ministry’s divisions and affiliated agencies.

Canada follows a functional community model, in which the federal public service is organized into defined occupational communities, spanning policy, finance, audit, and science and technology among others, each supported by its own training curriculum, competency framework, and cross-departmental career path, allowing specialization to persist even as officers move between departments and agencies.

France offers a particularly instructive case precisely because it has recently reformed away from the closed specialization model it once used. Until 2021, senior French officials were recruited through the École Nationale d’Administration into elite, closed administrative corps, most notably in finance, public works, and general administration, and built careers largely defined by lifelong membership in that corps. In January 2022, France replaced this system with the Institut National du Service Public, abolished the exit-ranking mechanism that had funneled top graduates into separate elite corps, and created a single, unified corps des administrateurs civils de l’État specifically designed to increase cross-sector mobility and reduce the institutional silos the old system was widely criticized for producing (Institut National du Service Public, n.d.). France’s own experience therefore offers a direct, contemporary illustration of the exact risk this submission has flagged throughout, that specialization without built-in mobility eventually produces the very rigidity it was meant to prevent, and that a well-designed system must guard against that outcome from the outset rather than correct for it decades later.

South Korea operates an examination-based technocratic model, in which entry into specialized administrative tracks, particularly in finance, economic planning, and industrial policy, is determined through a demanding national civil service examination tied to specific functional fields, with career progression subsequently managed to preserve and deepen that specialization through the senior ranks of government.

None of these nine architectures can simply be lifted and installed inside Nepal’s legal and administrative framework, and the drafting committee and Parliament should resist the temptation to import any one of them wholesale into the bill now under consideration. What this comparison does show clearly, and consistently, across nine very different political, constitutional, and administrative systems, is one shared lesson. Governments that build deliberate institutional mechanisms allowing expertise to accumulate over a career, rather than resetting it again and again through undirected rotation, tend to govern with greater competence, consistency, and public trust. This is precisely the advantage Nepal’s own Administration Service currently gives up through the rotation and transfer pattern documented earlier in this submission, and it is precisely the advantage a well-designed, Nepal-specific departmentalization model stands to recover.

The right response for Nepal is not to copy any single foreign model. It is to take the underlying idea and build it in a clearly Nepali way, shaped by the country’s own geography, its administrative, developmental, diplomatic, and national security needs along two long and sensitive borders, the peace that has held since the end of internal conflict though not yet fully settled, and its own development goals. A cadre system built for the scale of British ministries or the size of India’s federal structure will not fit Nepal without real adjustment. What the bill’s final drafting should aim for is a homegrown structure that applies specialization through the lens of Nepal’s own priorities, national security, lasting peace, affordability, fair economic development, and administrative reach into every province and local government.

Rationale for Timing
Over the past decade, Nepal has carried out the practical work of implementing the federal democratic structure set up under the Constitution of Nepal, 2015, which reorganized the state into three constitutionally mandated tiers of government, one federal government, seven provinces, and seven hundred fifty-three local governments. This transformation went well beyond redrawing administrative boundaries. It created an entirely new field of work, managing complex, continuous, and simultaneous relationships across all three tiers of government at once, covering fiscal transfers, provincial revenue administration, local financial management, disaster response coordination, security cooperation, diplomatic engagement, and development administration. An independent evaluation of the World Bank Group’s own engagement with this transition found that federalization required a fundamental restructuring of both the civil service and intergovernmental fiscal relations across the new three-tiered system, and that overlapping constitutional responsibilities between levels of government have persisted as a real and lasting implementation challenge rather than a passing transitional problem. This is exactly the kind of institutional complexity that a modernized, professionally specialized civil service is meant to handle, and it is the substantive reason the bill now before Parliament matters far more than its statutory length might suggest, functioning as the legal instrument through which the state’s administrative capacity is finally brought into line with the governance structure it is now constitutionally required to operate.

The bill’s legislative history shows both how difficult this problem is and how seriously it has been taken. A Federal Civil Service Bill was registered in the House of Representatives on March 4, 2024, and after long deliberation in the State Affairs and Good Governance Committee, was passed by the lower house on June 29, 2025. The National Assembly later discovered an unexplained change to the bill’s cooling-off provision in the text sent over from the lower house, and a parliamentary inquiry was set up to determine how this had happened, a response consistent with normal legislative accountability. The National Assembly restored a two-year cooling-off period for senior officials before any political or public appointment, including constitutional or diplomatic positions, and passed the bill on September 2, 2025. Before the House of Representatives could give final approval to the Assembly’s changes, the House was dissolved on September 12, 2025, in the middle of wider political turmoil, and the bill lapsed along with roughly thirty other pending pieces of legislation.

The government formed after that period of turmoil chose to resume the drafting process rather than abandon the reform. In April 2026, the Ministry of Land Management, Cooperatives, Federal Affairs and General Administration published a revised draft for public comment under Section 6, subsection 2 of the Legislation Act, 2081, proposing several substantial changes to long-standing practice, including a phased increase in the mandatory retirement age to sixty years, structural changes to service tenure, revised eligibility criteria, altered recruitment quota proportions, and tighter age ceilings for entry into the civil service (Ministry of Land Management, Cooperatives, Federal Affairs and General Administration, 2026).

A later revision brought a markedly different and far more contested proposal, a one-time compulsory retirement rule applicable to any employee who had already reached fifty-five years of age or completed thirty years of cumulative service the moment the amended law took effect. It is understood, through informal channels, that the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs raised constitutional objections to this provision, arguing that it would subject officials in nearly identical circumstances to different treatment based on a single day’s difference in age, and that the provision could not be reconciled with existing civil service law or with the constitutional guarantees governing the terms and conditions of public employment. As of this writing, the bill has met its principal procedural requirements before the concerned ministries and is moving toward formal review by the Public Service Commission and the Cabinet before its return to Parliament, with the retirement provision, alongside several other clauses on service structure, recruitment, and career management, still open to negotiation, amendment, and final legislative approval. This submission speaks directly into that unresolved legislative window, at the point where its analysis carries the most practical relevance to the outcome.

That the government has come back to this reform through a complete legislative cycle, a parliamentary dissolution, and a second full drafting process, rather than letting the effort lapse for good, is real evidence of sustained institutional commitment to the goal behind it. Having worked closely on this bill while in government service, I can say with confidence that political commitment to deeper structural reform has held steady across successive administrations of different political composition. What has been missing is not intent but architecture, an institutional design suited to Nepal’s own administrative, constitutional, and developmental circumstances rather than one borrowed wholesale from elsewhere, and tested honestly against the real conditions of implementation rather than adopted for its theoretical appeal alone.

The bill has to serve several obligations at once, the constitutional spirit that calls for a professional and accountable public administration, the government’s own public commitments to good governance, the demands of national development and shared prosperity, the state’s strategic interests, and the everyday needs of the ordinary citizen waiting at a government counter. It has to work just as well at the local government level as it does against internationally recognized standards of administrative professionalism. As digital governance systems and artificial intelligence take over more and more routine administrative work, the value of professional judgment, sound policy analysis, careful data governance, and competent technical oversight will rise, not fall, and any version of this bill that ignores this shift risks locking in a structure built for a bureaucracy that will already be outdated by the time the law takes effect. The bill also has to speak directly and honestly to civil servants themselves, to their careers, their motivation, and their reasonable expectation that real performance will actually be recognized and rewarded, including by correcting the transfer and rotation pattern documented earlier in this submission, a pattern that has steadily blocked merit-based career growth. Leaving out any of these pieces would not simply produce a weaker reform. It would create friction with the administrative systems already running underneath it, and that friction, left unaddressed, is exactly the mechanism through which a promising reform slides into institutional confusion and, over time, dysfunction.

Recommendations
Five design principles are offered here for the drafting committee, the concerned ministries, and the members of Parliament now finalizing this bill.

First, departmentalization should be written into statute with real permanence, so the reform’s continuity does not depend on the personal preference of whichever minister happens to hold the portfolio in a given year. Anchoring the framework in primary legislation, rather than in administrative circular or regulation subject to easy executive revision, gives civil servants the legal certainty and institutional stability they need to plan real careers around a structure they can reasonably expect to last.

Second, the bill should set up a formal, competitive mechanism through which serving officials may apply to move into a specialization outside their current assignment, governed by clear eligibility criteria and merit-based selection. Building this mechanism together with the existing workforce, rather than imposing it from above, will be essential to winning the institutional buy-in this transition needs to succeed.

Third, the transition should be sequenced with real legal and administrative discipline, drawing directly on the documented experience of Samayojan, the personnel adjustment process carried out under the Employee Adjustment Act, 2075 (2018), which reassigned roughly ninety-seven thousand existing civil service positions across the newly created federal, provincial, and local government structure. That process proved deeply problematic in practice. It generated significant procedural and substantive disputes, produced systemic and structural inconsistencies in placement decisions, and, in a number of documented instances, caused genuine hardship to the individual civil servants affected. The evidence of this is not limited to a single source. The record includes multiple Court verdicts reviewing adjustment decisions taken under this process, including at least one in which the Court declared a specific adjustment decision null and void for failing to meet the legal standard required of it. It also includes several minister level and Cabinet decisions that subsequently revised or reversed adjustment placements originally made by the Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration, along with other documented administrative corrections issued once the flaws in the original process became apparent. Taken together, this body of judicial verdicts, ministerial and Cabinet corrections, and administrative precedent forms a substantial and largely uncontested evidentiary record. It establishes, on the official record and from multiple independent institutional sources, that the Samayojan process as implemented fell well short of the legal and procedural rigor the exercise required.

A peer-reviewed study of Nepal’s federal transition, drawing on the government’s own Federalism Capacity Needs Assessment, adds a further, complementary finding, that while institutional structures and the regulatory environment advanced steadily during this period, real gaps persisted between the personnel needs of subnational governments and the administrative capacity actually placed there to meet them (Yilmaz, Ahsan, Dedu, and Rana, 2020). Read together, the judicial record, the Cabinet’s own corrective decisions, and this empirical study point to the same conclusion from three different directions, legal, executive, and administrative, and all three should directly shape the sequencing, phasing, legal safeguards, and independent monitoring built into the current bill’s transition provisions, so that the procedural failures and adjudicated errors of the earlier exercise are not repeated in the transition this bill will set in motion.

Fourth, every civil servant recruited under the new framework should be placed directly into a defined specialization from the point of entry, with no generalist holding period beforehand. At the same time, officials who wish to leave the civil service, or to move between federal, provincial, and local government, or between one specialized service and another, should be given a clearly codified and orderly path for doing so, rather than leaving such movement to administrative discretion exercised case by case. This provision would also close the door on general administration continuing to function as an undifferentiated catch-all category absorbing personnel without functional justification.

Fifth, and this principle deserves particular attention given how much the current bill focuses on retirement and entry rules, the design must protect real professional mobility within each specialization while closing off the permanent confinement of officials to one ministry. It must also stop the erosion of specialization at the point of promotion to Joint Secretary and, more seriously, at the point of promotion to Secretary, the exact career stage where accumulated expertise carries the greatest value to the state.

In drafting this provision, the legislature should draw a direct lesson from institutional failures Nepal has already lived through, cases where personnel were allowed to transfer across functionally unrelated services without real justification, including parliamentary service staff absorbed into general administration, technical officers redirected into revenue administration, and judicial service staff transferred into general administration. These precedents did not build institutional capacity, they weakened it, and the current bill should close this door through clear statutory language.

As one example, a finance cadre officer should hold the statutory right to move across a clearly defined set of related assignments that together make up the full field of public financial management. This includes the Ministry of Finance itself, the finance or revenue agencies of a sector ministry, customs administration, public finance and accounts, public debt management, banking and financial sector oversight, insurance regulation, and capital market regulation. Each of these should be organized as a properly structured sub-classification within the finance cadre, not treated as separate, unrelated postings. The same officer should also be able to move into a provincial finance ministry, a local government finance role, and planning or audit related assignments where the law permits, carrying real, accumulated expertise forward at every step rather than losing it with each new posting.

This continuity should not stop partway through a career. It should run without interruption all the way up to and including appointment at the secretary level, the very rank where sound financial and fiscal judgment matters most to the country’s economic management. Nepal’s existing Accounts group already shows that this kind of controlled, field-based mobility works in practice, it is a tested domestic model, not a theory. Its legal protection, however, currently stops at the undersecretary level, exactly where its value to the state would otherwise be greatest. This is a narrow and fixable gap in the law, and the current bill has both the opportunity and the responsibility to close it, by extending the same protections already proven at the undersecretary level across the officer’s full career.

Without this fifth principle, a fair critic could argue that departmentalization simply trades one structural problem, undirected rotation, for another, permanent bureaucratic compartmentalization. With it, the reform gains the operational flexibility needed to match real expertise to real administrative problems wherever they arise across government. The drafting committee and parliament should carefully assess whether the bill’s current provisions adequately protect this kind of career mobility and this continuity of specialized expertise at senior levels, a structural question that has, so far, received far less attention than the retirement age debate, despite carrying comparable, and arguably greater, long-term consequence for institutional performance.

Institutional Neutrality Under a Specialized Structure
A specialized civil service only delivers on its promise when political leaders understand what they are actually working with, a point that matters as much for the current legislature as for every future one. A civil service belongs to the nation, not to whoever happens to hold political office at a given time. Its duty is to serve the government of the day faithfully and within the law, regardless of which party or coalition is in power, and this steady continuity is one of the defining purposes of a professional civil service. This idea can seem odd from the outside. An official who serves one government loyally and then serves the next government with the same professionalism is not being inconsistent. That behavior is simply what institutional neutrality means in practice, and it is exactly what allows the state to keep functioning through changes in government without changing its own character, a point made very real by the dissolution and change of government that interrupted this bill’s own passage in 2025.

Political leaders who understand this do not treat their civil service with suspicion. Instead, they use it deliberately and well in the national interest, much as India’s constitutionally established All India Services have continued to function across successive governments representing very different political views (Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, n.d.). Such leaders invest in the civil service and give it real responsibility, rather than treating it as something to route around or a loyalty test to pass. No civil service, however well designed, is fully protected from political pressure, internal self-interest, individual mistakes, or poor incentives, and a serious reform proposal should say so plainly rather than pretend otherwise. Departmentalization does not remove these risks. It builds a structural check against one of the more damaging ones, the ability of political power to pull an entire generalist service toward whatever direction it currently prefers, a weakness made worse, not better, by the kind of unanchored rotation or transfer described earlier. A civil service built around real expertise and clear professional standards is harder to move that way than a generalist service that can be reassigned at will, even though specialization brings its own risks of departments becoming closed off or narrowly self-interested. These risks need active management through independent oversight, a safeguard that should be written clearly into the current draft rather than assumed to take care of itself.

Institutional Continuity and Domestic Precedent

This proposed reform is not something borrowed from abroad. It builds on structures Nepal already runs and has already made work, shaped to fit Nepal itself rather than copied from another country’s civil service. As with any working system, there is always room to grow stronger, and combining specialization with clear standards, defined competency requirements, real professional training, promotion based on merit, honest performance evaluation, independent recruitment, and protection from political interference will decide whether this bill actually improves how government performs or simply rearranges its organizational chart. Specialization by itself does not guarantee better results. It creates the conditions under which better results become possible, as long as these safeguards are written into the bill from the start rather than added later as an afterthought or left to future regulation.

Built this way, departmentalization becomes a genuinely homegrown reform, shaped by Nepal’s need to secure its borders and keep its internal peace, to hold onto the hard-won stability of the years since the conflict ended, and to deliver the fair economic development that federalism promised but has not yet fully brought about.

Beyond these structural gains, the reform also answers a practical demand felt across Nepal’s civil service and its wider public. Citizens today expect government offices to explain delays, meet published service standards, and treat similar cases the same way regardless of who is asking. A civil service organized around clear specialization, transparent recruitment, and real accountability for performance is what makes these everyday expectations achievable rather than aspirational. It gives officers a stable professional identity to work from and gives citizens a predictable, competent point of contact whenever they need a government service, whether that is a land record, a business license, a tax matter, or a social benefit. A system built this way strengthens public confidence in the state’s basic ability to deliver, which in turn supports every other reform Nepal has undertaken since it adopted federalism.

 Civil Service Capacity for a Digital and Demographic Transition
Two long-term realities deserve direct attention in this bill, and both connect closely to the retirement and career structure questions already under discussion. The first is the shift already underway toward digital public service delivery. As government offices adopt online systems for revenue collection, land records, business registration, transport management, driving license and social benefits, the skills needed inside the civil service are changing quickly. Officers with strong, sustained experience in finance, data management, and technical fields are becoming more valuable to government, not less, and a system that keeps resetting this expertise through constant rotation works directly against this shift instead of supporting it. Departmentalization gives Nepal a practical way to build and hold onto the technical depth this digital transition requires.

The second reality is the coming wave of retirements tied directly to the very provisions this bill is negotiating. Whatever final retirement age the bill settles on, a large share of Nepal’s senior civil servants will leave service within a fairly short period, and the officers who replace them will need clear, well-defined career paths from their very first day, not the unpredictable pattern of postings described earlier in this submission. Departmentalization, paired with direct entry into a defined specialization for every new recruit, gives Nepal a structured way to manage this transition smoothly, rather than leaving it to chance at the exact moment institutional memory is most at risk of being lost.

Institutional Design as a Continuing Discipline
No country gets its administrative system into a final, permanently settled shape, and no single piece of legislation, however carefully written, should be expected to achieve that either. The sound approach, consistent with continuous improvement practices used across many fields worldwide, is to keep what works, fix what does not, and treat institutional design as something that has to evolve because the problems facing the state keep evolving too. The United Kingdom’s experience offers a useful comparison here. Its 1968 review, formally titled the Report of the Committee on the Civil Service and widely known as the Fulton Report, found that the British civil service leaned too heavily on a generalist model, gave specialists too little authority and responsibility, and had real weaknesses in personnel management and career planning (Committee on the Civil Service, 1968). That report became an important reference point for later British civil service reform, and Britain has kept adjusting its structure ever since. India’s real achievement was not simply creating specialized service groups. It was keeping ethical, professional personnel administration running in the national interest, supported by steady recruitment, posting, and training systems that keep those services sharp year after year (Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, n.d.). That machinery is worth studying closely, not to copy it directly, but to learn from it as the current bill moves through its final stages.

The bigger lesson here, drawn from both international experience and Nepal’s own long record of trying to solve this same problem, is not that specialization is simply good and generalism is simply bad. It is that this bill should aim to build a professional civil service capable of both real specialization and real coordination across government, one that does not mistake rigid cadre boundaries for genuine institutional strength, and one that treats reform as an ongoing discipline rather than a box to check once this particular law passes.

Nepal already has working versions of this discipline inside its own civil service, within the Foreign Service, the Audit Service, the Judicial Service, and the Parliamentary Service, alongside similar traditions of internal specialization within the military and the security forces. The task now facing Parliament is simple to describe, even if demanding to carry out, extend this same discipline more fully into general administration, finance, and planning through departmentalization, fixing the rotation pattern and the loss of specialization at senior rank described earlier, at a time when the government has already shown real readiness to modernize how it manages its people, and while this particular window for legislative action remains open.

Nepal will keep receiving financing and technical support from multilateral and bilateral development partners, and their continued interest in this bill’s progress is itself a sign of how much it matters. Development partners can offer financing, comparative experience, and technical assistance, and that support has real value. But the institutional structure of Nepal’s civil service must ultimately be designed, owned, and sustained by Nepal itself, through this Parliament, in this legislative session. Institutional strength is built by people who stay inside a functional area long enough to truly master it, who carry what they learn from one posting into the next instead of starting over each time, and who work inside a system disciplined enough to keep improving rather than settle for what already exists.

Nepal has spent the past decade building the federal structure the country needs. The work still ahead, and the work this bill is positioned to deliver, is building the people equal to that structure, replacing a career pattern where capable officers move through a dozen unrelated postings and retire without real mastery in any of them. This reform is the mechanism through which Nepal’s own institutions can finally catch up to the ambition already written into its own constitution. It is offered here in the hope that the Parliament now holding this bill will see the present moment for what it truly is, not simply another draft waiting to be passed, but a real chance to move this long-running effort meaningfully forward for the current generation of Nepal’s civil servants and the citizens they serve.

References
Civil Service Careers. (n.d.). Professions. UK Government. https://www.civil-service-careers.gov.uk/professions/

Committee on the Civil Service. (1968). The civil service (Cmnd. 3638). Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

Federal Ministry of the Interior and Community of Germany. (n.d.). Federal civil service law and career structure. Government of Germany. https://www.bmi.bund.de

Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training. (n.d.). All India Services. Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. https://dopt.gov.in

Government of Nepal. (1993). Civil Service Act, 2049 (1993). Nepal Law Commission.

Government of Nepal. (2018). Employee Adjustment Act, 2075 (2018). Nepal Law Commission.

Independent Evaluation Group. (2024). Chapter 3: Federalism. In World Bank Group Nepal country program evaluation, 2014-23. World Bank Group. https://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/evaluations/world-bank-group-nepal-2014-23/chapter-3-federalism

Institut National du Service Public. (n.d.). Recrutement et formation des cadres supérieurs de l’État [Recruitment and training of senior state officials]. Government of France. https://www.insp.gouv.fr

Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security of the People’s Republic of China, & Organization Department of the Communist Party of China. (n.d.). Civil service law and cadre management system. Government of the People’s Republic of China. http://www.mohrss.gov.cn

Ministry of Land Management, Cooperatives, Federal Affairs and General Administration. (2026, April 24). Notice on submission of opinions and suggestions on the draft bill relating to the formation, operation, and service conditions of the Federal Civil Service. Government of Nepal.

Ministry of Personnel Management of the Republic of Korea. (n.d.). Civil service recruitment and career structure. Government of the Republic of Korea. https://www.mpm.go.kr

National Personnel Authority of Japan. (n.d.). Career civil servant system and ministry-based recruitment. Government of Japan. https://www.jinji.go.jp

Nepal Parliament Secretariat. (n.d.). Federal Civil Service Bill, 2080: Bill status record. House of Representatives, Federal Parliament of Nepal.

Public Service Commission of Nepal. (2024). Civil Service Journal (Vol. 44). https://psc.gov.np/site_uploads/files/Civil_Service_Journal__2081_web_file1.pdf

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. (n.d.). Functional communities and occupational groups in the federal public service. Government of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat.html

United States Office of Personnel Management. (n.d.). Position classification and occupational series standards. U.S. Government. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/classification-qualifications/

Yilmaz, S., Ahsan, S. K., Dedu, G., & Rana, S. S. J. B. (2020). Transition to federalism in Nepal. Case Studies in Business and Management, 7(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.5296/csbm.v7i1.17066