Background
Right to employment is one of the important fundamental rights as well as one of the important sources of livelihood and income generation. It emphasizes the concept of "decent work," which includes the right to fair wages, safe working environments, and reasonable working hours. Governments are obligated to progressively realize this right by creating economic policies, providing vocational training, and establishing social safety nets for the unemployed.
The right to employment is supported by legal structures and valued for its contribution to alleviating the substantial social and economic burdens caused by unemployment. In international law and numerous national constitutions, it functions as a foundational right, allowing individuals to secure the means for other vital needs such as food, shelter, and medical care.
In essence, the right to employment aims to enable citizens to engage meaningfully in economic life while protecting them from exploitation and inequalities.

International Provision relating to Right to Employment
Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted in 1948, affirms that every person has the right to work in just and favourable conditions, along with protection against unemployment. This is further elaborated in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) of 1976, which recognises the right to work as the opportunity to earn a living through employment that is freely chosen or accepted. Article 7 of the same Covenant guarantees the right to fair and favourable working conditions, including equitable remuneration, safe and healthy workplaces, and limits on working hours. Additionally, Article 8 upholds the right to establish and join trade unions.
A range of International Labour Organization (ILO) Conventions address related matters such as minimum wage standards, labour relations, employment policies, social dialogue, and social security provisions.
Nepal became a party to the ICESCR through ratification in 1991, though it has ratified only a limited number of the ILO Conventions.

National Framework relating to Right to Employment
The National Framework for the Right to Employment in Nepal is safeguarded by the constitution and various legislative frameworks. The Right to Employment in Nepal refers to a fundamental constitutional right that guarantees every citizen access to employment opportunities.
Employment laws protect both employers and workers by creating fair, safe, and transparent workplaces. Nepal has made significant improvements in labor rights, wage systems, social security, workplace safety, and equal treatment, especially after adopting the Labour Act 2074 (2017) and Right to Employment Act 2018.
National Legal Framework includes:

Constitutional Basis
Article 33: Right to Employment: This article specifically guarantees the right to work for every citizen.
Every citizen shall have the right to employment. The terms and conditions of employment shall be as provided for in the law.
Every citizen shall have the right to choose employment.
Article 34: Right regarding Labor: This article focuses on the rights of those who are already in the workforce ("laborers").
Every laborer shall have the right to appropriate labor practice.
Every laborer shall have the right to appropriate remuneration (wages), facilities, and contributory social security.
Every laborer shall have the right to form and join trade unions and to engage in collective bargaining, in accordance with the law.
This provision reflects Nepal's commitment to addressing unemployment, reducing poverty, and minimizing widespread labor migration abroad.

Right to Employment Act, 2075 (2018)
To implement the constitutional right, Nepal enacted the Right to Employment Act in 2018. Key features include:
Guaranteeing every Nepali citizen access to employment opportunities.
Requiring local governments (municipalities and rural municipalities) to provide jobs, to registered unemployed individuals.
Establishing Employment Service Centers at local levels to match job seekers with employers and issue unemployment ID cards.
Prioritizing local job seekers in companies and targeting support for low-income groups.
This act operationalizes the constitutional mandate by creating mechanisms for job registration, placement, and limited guarantees.

 Labour Act, 2074 (2017)
The Labour Act, 2074 (2017) is the primary legislation in Nepal that regulates the relationship between employers and employees. While the Right to Employment Act focuses on creating jobs, the Labour Act ensures that once a person is employed, their right is protected through job security, fair pay, and safe conditions. It ensures the right to employment by mandating written contracts for all sectors, enforcing strict job security and fair termination rules, guaranteeing minimum wages with social security benefits, and regulating working hours to ensure safe and dignified labor conditions.

Judiciary’s Role in Ensuring Right to Employment
The role of the judiciary in ensuring the right to employment in Nepal is characterized by its function as a constitutional guardian that transforms theoretical rights into enforceable realities. Under Article 33 of the Constitution of Nepal, employment is a fundamental right, and the judiciary ensures this by strictly monitoring the actions of the state and private entities. The Supreme Court primarily exercises its extraordinary jurisdiction to issue writs such as Certiorari to quash illegal terminations or Mandamus to compel the government to fulfill its statutory duties toward job seekers and employees.
The judiciary plays a vital role in the private sector through the specialized Labor Court, which adjudicates disputes arising from the Labor Act, 2017. This judicial oversight extends to ensuring social security benefits, enforcing the minimum wage, and guaranteeing a safe, harassment-free working environment as part of the right to work with dignity.

Case laws relating to Right to Employment
1. Mashhud Khan and others Vs. Government of Nepal, Ministry of Home Affairs, Armed Police Force (APF) Headquarters, et al.
Case Overview
Court: Supreme Court, Joint Bench
Judges: Hon. Justice Deepak Kumar Karki, Hon. Justice Tej Bahadur K.C.
Date of Order: 2075/12/28 (April 11, 2019)
Decision No: 10395
Case No: 075-WO-0370
Subject: Certiorari / Mandamus
Petitioner: Mashhud Khan and others
Respondent: Government of Nepal, Ministry of Home Affairs, Armed Police Force (APF) Headquarters, et al.
The Facts of the Case
The facts of this case center on the publication of a recruitment notice by the Armed Police Force (APF) on September 7, 2018 (2075.05.22), seeking to fill 2,040 positions. At the time of this advertisement, the recruitment was governed by the Armed Police Force Act, 2058 and the Armed Police Force Rules, 2072, which were the active legal instruments. While these laws included inclusive quotas for women, Dalits, and Madhesis, they had not yet been formally amended to include the specific "Muslim" or "Khas Arya" categories introduced by the 2015 Constitution. Additionally, the Ministry of Home Affairs had already initiated the legislative process to update these laws, having received cabinet approval to draft a new bill that would eventually align the security forces with the new constitutional mandates.
The Petitioner’s Claims
The petitioners, representing the Muslim community, claimed that the recruitment notice was unconstitutional because it failed to allocate a specific, separate quota for Muslims and Khas Aryas as required by the Right to Social Justice (Article 42). They argued that by adhering to outdated regulations (Rule 9(3) of the APF Rules), the government was showing "indifference" toward the new Constitution and violating the petitioners' Right to Employment (Article 33) and Right to Equality (Article 18). The central argument was that any hiring process conducted without these new inclusive categories was a rejection of the "proportional inclusion" principle promised in the Constitution's preamble, thereby causing irreparable damage to the employment prospects and dignity of marginalized groups.
Response from the Opponents (Government & APF)
APF Headquarters: They argued that the recruitment was conducted based on existing laws (APF Rules, 2072). While the new Constitution mentions broader inclusion, the specific laws and regulations had not yet been amended to include the new categories. They stated that a draft for the amendment of the APF Act and Rules, incorporating the constitutional provisions, had already been sent to the Ministry.
Ministry of Home Affairs: They argued that the federal law-making process is underway. The recruitment was done according to the currently active inclusive quotas to avoid security challenges and delays in daily operations.
Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers: They stated that the government is committed to the Constitution. Since the APF Act, 2058 was made before the current Constitution, amendments are in progress. They also noted that a "Muslim Commission" has been established to protect the interests of the community.
Findings and Reasoning of the Court
On the Writ of Certiorari (To cancel the recruitment): The Court noted that the recruitment for 2,040 positions followed the existing Armed Police Force Act, 2058 and APF Rules, 2072. While it is true that these advertisements did not include the specific quotas for Muslims and Khas Aryas mentioned in the new Constitution (Article 42), the law-making process (Legislature) and law-execution (Executive) follow a procedure. Since the APF is a security agency, stopping a massive recruitment drive mid-way would harm national security. Therefore, the recruitment was not deemed "illegal" as it followed the laws active at that time.
On the Writ of Mandamus (To force an amendment): The Court explained that Mandamus is issued when a public official fails to perform a legal duty. In this case, the Ministry of Home Affairs had already received approval from the Cabinet to draft a new APF Bill to align with the Constitution. Since the government was already in the process of drafting laws, it cannot be said they "refused" to perform their duty.
The Final Verdict
The Writ Petition is Quashed (Dismissed): The Court decided not to cancel the recruitment notice or issue a formal Mandamus, as the legal authority to create specific quotas depends on the passing of a new Act by the Parliament, which was already in progress.
However, a Directive Order is Issued: Even though the petition was dismissed, the Court acknowledged that the Right to Social Justice (Article 42) is a core spirit of the Constitution. Therefore, the Court issued a Directive Order to the opponents (Government of Nepal):
"In upcoming recruitment advertisements, ensure that the provisions of Article 42 of the Constitution are met by providing the Right to Social Justice (inclusive quotas) for Muslims and economically backward Khas Aryas. The government must expedite the necessary amendments to the Acts and Rules to reflect the constitutional spirit of social justice and inclusion."

2. Bharat Prasad Koirala vs. Public Service Commission
Case Details
Decision No.: 10308
Year/Date: 2076 B.S. (Decision Date: 2075/09/01)
Court: Supreme Court, Joint Bench
Judges: Hon. Justice Sarada Prasad Ghimire and Hon. Justice Dambar Bahadur Shahi
Case Type: Writ of Certiorari / Mandamus
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, Bharat Prasad Koirala, was a Class III (Gazetted) Engineer in the Nepal Engineering Service. He held a Bachelor’s degree in Science and a Post Graduate Diploma in Seismology from Japan. The Tribhuvan University (TU) had recognized his Japanese diploma as equivalent to a "Post Graduate Diploma in a Relevant Subject."
In 2073 B.S., the Public Service Commission (PSC) advertised two vacancies for promotion to Class II (Gazetted) based on Seniority and Performance Appraisal. The petitioner applied, but the Equivalence Determination Committee and the PSC rejected his candidacy. They claimed that while his diploma was equivalent to a Bachelor's degree, the specific "Service Rules" for Engineering (2051) required a Master’s degree (M.Sc.) for that post.
Petitioner's Claim
The Civil Service Act, 2049 (Third Amendment, 2070) explicitly states in Section 24D1(A) that for promotion to Class II based on seniority, the minimum requirement is a Bachelor’s degree in a relevant field.
The petitioner argued that since he has a Bachelor’s degree (recognized by TU) and the Act only requires a Bachelor's for this specific promotion category, the authorities cannot use a "Rule" (subsidiary legislation) to demand a higher qualification (Master's) than what is stated in the "Act" (primary legislation).
Respondents' (Government/PSC) Response
They argued that according to the Nepal Engineering Service Rules, 2051, the minimum entry-level qualification for Class III is a Master's degree.
They claimed that since a Master's is needed to enter the service, a candidate with only a Bachelor's (or equivalent) cannot be promoted to a higher class (Class II).
They maintained that the Equivalence Committee had already decided his diploma did not meet the "minimum educational qualification" required for the service group.
Court's Findings
The Supreme Court analyzed the Hierarchy of Laws and the Principle of Delegated Legislation:
The Civil Service Act is "Parent Legislation" passed by Parliament. The Engineering Service Rules are "Delegated Legislation" created by the Government. A Rule cannot override or contradict an Act.
The 2070 amendment to the Act created a special provision for promotion based on seniority and performance, specifically setting the qualification at a Bachelor's degree.
The Court ruled that when the Legislature (Parliament) specifically lowers or sets a qualification in an Act, the executive branch cannot ignore it by pointing to older or secondary Rules.
Since TU and the Nepal Academy of Science and Technology (NAST) recognized his Japanese diploma as relevant to Geophysics/Seismology, the technical relevance was proven.
Final Verdict
The Supreme Court issued a Writ of Certiorari to quash the decisions of the Equivalence Committee and the PSC that disqualified the petitioner. It further issued a Writ of Mandamus ordering the respondents to:
Recognize the petitioner as a potential candidate for the promotion.
Promote him to the Class II position (since one seat was still vacant).
Maintain his seniority from the date others in that batch were promoted and provide all back pay and benefits.

3. Nawaraj Silwal vs. Government of Nepal
Case Details
Case Name: Advocate Kapil Dev Dhakal (and Nawaraj Silwal) vs. Government of Nepal, Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, et al.
Decision No: 9723
Date of Verdict: March 21, 2017 (2073 Chaitra 8 BS)
Court: Supreme Court of Nepal (Full Bench)
Bench: Chief Justice Sushila Karki, Justices Hari Krishna Karki, Ishwor Prasad Khatiwada, Dr. Ananda Mohan Bhattarai, and Anil Kumar Sinha.
Case Fact
In February 2017, the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers (OPMCM) exercised its powers under the Police Regulations, 2071 to fill the vacant post of Inspector General of Police (IGP). Despite the presence of four high-ranking Deputy Inspector Generals (DIGs), the Cabinet chose Jaya Bahadur Chand (ranked 3rd in seniority) for the role. This decision was made via a "single-name proposal" from the Ministry of Home Affairs, effectively ignoring the profiles of the senior-most officers, primarily Nawaraj Silwal (ranked 1st).
Plaintiff’s Claim
The government breached Rule 41 of the Police Regulations, 2071, which mandates that the IGP must be selected based on a collective evaluation of Seniority, Work Efficiency, Leadership, and Responsibility.
They claimed the government used its "discretionary power" as a "blank check" for political favoritism, which is prohibited under the principle of Administrative Fairness.
Silwal claimed that having secured the highest performance marks for four consecutive years, he had a legally protected expectation to be considered the "best among equals."
Response
The Gvernment of Nepal and the Attorney General’s office defended the decision on the following grounds:
They argued that the appointment of a security chief is a matter of "Executive Privilege" and "Subjective Satisfaction," where the government chooses a leader it trusts to implement its security policies.
The defense argued that the Court should exercise restraint and not act as a "Super-Cabinet" by reviewing the merits of administrative candidates.
They interpreted Rule 41’s phrase "the government shall appoint the candidate it deems appropriate" as granting absolute authority to select any eligible DIG.
Court Finding
The Full Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Sushila Karki, made several groundbreaking legal observations:
The Court ruled that "Appropriateness" in Rule 41 is not a subjective whim but must be proven through Objective Indicators (Performance Appraisal scores, seniority lists, and training records).
The Court found that the OPMCM failed to even compare the candidates. By presenting only one name (Chand) to the Cabinet, the Ministry of Home Affairs acted with Procedural Impropriety.
The Court emphasized that in a democracy, no executive action is "immune" from judicial review if it violates the spirit of the law.
Upon reviewing the "confidential" files, the Court found a clear disparity: Silwal had the highest aggregate score (1st rank), followed by Prakash Aryal (2nd), while the appointee (Chand) ranked 4th in merit.
Final Verdict
The Court issued a dual-action verdict:
Writ of Certiorari: It quashed the Cabinet decision of Feb 12, 2017, declaring it void ab initio (illegal from the start) due to the absence of a rational basis and violation of Rule 41.
Writ of Mandamus: It commanded the Government to:
Re-initiate the appointment process by strictly following Rule 41 and Rule 41(A).
Use the Performance Evaluation (PE) scores of the last four fiscal years as the primary decider.
Appoint the candidate who is senior and has the highest average merit score.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the right to employment in Nepal is a fundamental constitutional pillar that guarantees every citizen the opportunity to work and choose their profession with dignity. The legal framework, primarily through the Labour Act 2074 and the Right to Employment Act 2075, ensures that this right is not just a promise but is backed by job security, fair wages, and safe working conditions. The judiciary plays a vital role as the ultimate guardian, using its power of Judicial Review to protect citizens from "executive whims" and arbitrary state actions. By issuing writs like Certiorari and Mandamus, the courts can cancel illegal terminations and compel the government to fulfill its duties toward job seekers. Landmark cases, such as the Nawaraj Silwal and Mashhud Khan demonstrate that the court prioritizes merit, seniority, and proportional inclusion over political favoritism. This judicial oversight transforms the abstract constitutional mandate into a justiciable reality, ensuring that career progression is based on objective performance rather than personal bias. Ultimately, the judiciary ensures that employment remains a reliable source of livelihood and social stability, shielded by the Rule of Law.