The government has proposed a draft law to bypass the Public Service Commission on the recommendation of appointing the Inspector General (IGP) of Nepal Police and Armed Police Force. In the draft of the Act, the proposal to form a recommendation committee under the leadership of the Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs to recommend the appointment has increased the danger of bureaucracy dominating the promotion of IGP. Such a proposal by the government has strengthened the possibility of political maneuvering and non-transparent decisions in the promotion process.

According to the prevailing system, the appointment of IGP of Nepal Police and Armed Police Force is done on the basis of seniority, efficiency and performance. The proposed draft is said to give less importance to seniority and give more emphasis to efficiency and functionality. This has raised the suspicion that senior and capable police officers will be neglected during the recommendations. Bypassing the

public service, the possibility of various types of manipulation in promotion cannot be ruled out. There are many examples of opaque decisions due to political interference, especially in the leadership selection of Nepal Police. Therefore, neglecting the role of public service in the selection of the leadership of the security agencies may result in conflicting appointment process and administrative chaos. The role of Public Service Commission is essential to maintain fairness and transparency in promotions.

If the public service gets the right to lead the recruitment and promotion of civil servants and other government agencies, it is appropriate that the security agencies also be given a similar role. Because if the promotion process is not transparent, the question of fairness in leadership selection is sure to arise. Earlier in 2074, the process of appointment of IGP became controversial and the Supreme Court had to intervene.

It seems that the involvement of public service is necessary for a fair assessment to prevent such disputes from recurring. In sensitive areas like security agencies, the appointment process needs to be credible. Trying to use the bureaucracy for political interests can lead to a loss of both discipline and trust in the security agencies. The government needs to pay special attention to the development of a transparent and fair decision-making system in such a sensitive area.

On the other hand, even the three-year tenure system proposed in the draft may have a negative impact on the "chain of command" of the security agencies. While there is a debate that the tenure of IGP and AIG should be different, the proposal of the same tenure for both has raised suspicions that the draft has been tampered with. There is also a danger of losing the credibility of the government by removing the role of the public service and trying to increase the opacity of the security agencies.