Mayor Gopal Hamal challenges provincial local services act in supreme court; constitutional bench to hear case on priority

Dhangadhi: Mayor of Dhangadhi Sub-metropolitan City, Gopal Hamal, has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court, claiming that the “Sudurpaschim Province Local Services (Formation and Operation) Act, 2081” is unconstitutional. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court has decided to hear the petition on a priority basis.

Arguing on behalf of Mayor Hamal, senior advocate Jyoti Baniya stated that the Act introduced by the provincial government has created obstacles in recruiting contract employees across 88 local levels in Sudurpaschim Province, including Dhangadhi Sub-metropolitan City. He said that due to shortages of technical, health and non-ranking staff at the local level, there is a need for immediate contractual appointments. However, the new Act requires mandatory consent from the ministry even for contract hiring, which he argued has hampered the efficiency of local governments.

Baniya questioned whether local public representatives are unable to manage employees according to their needs. He asked what justification remains for local government if municipalities must wait for provincial approval to determine the number of gardeners, sweepers or technicians required.

Mayor Hamal has argued that the “management of local services” is explicitly listed under the sole powers of the local level in Schedule 8, Serial No. 5 of the Constitution. The writ petition alleges that the Provincial Act has centralized the appointment, transfer, promotion and administrative control of employees within the Office of the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers.

The petition claims that the term “ministry” used in Sections 3, 4, 8(4), 14, 15, 24 and 13(2) of the Act interferes with the autonomy of local levels. It specifically states that Section 3, which considers the Provincial Ministry as the “main body” in the operation of local administration, contradicts Articles 221 and 226 of the Constitution.

The provision in Section 24 regarding employee transfers has also become a point of contention. It grants the province the authority to transfer employees from one local level to another on a rotational basis. The writ argues that this risks making employees more accountable to provincial ministers and secretaries than to local governments, potentially increasing politicization in administration and weakening local accountability.

The petition also references the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in the case of “Arvind Yadav vs. Birgunj Metropolitan City,” which established that the management of local services is the prerogative of local levels. Mayor Hamal has contended that the provincial Act contradicts the spirit of that decision.