A survey of terms that are almost but not quite right
Including an explanation of what’s wrong with each one of them
I can't think of a good noun for the kind of person you're talking about, despite having been fascinated by this particular kind of irrationality for years.
English does have a precise adjective for this mentality. Such a person is said to be rule-bound. But when you want a derogatory name to call someone, only a noun will do.
English does have plenty of nouns for people with this mentality, but all that I can think of are restricted in scope. A language lawyer or grammar Nazi is someone who is obsessed with following dictionaries' or grammatical authorities' pronouncements on language usage, thinking of language as a system of strict rules rather than a tradition always open to reasonable extensions and variations. Rules lawyer and rules Nazi are the same, but restricted to games. A fuss-budget refuses to compromise about small things, but this term doesn't emphasize official or articulated rules; instead it suggests only that the person is fussy about things that are idiosyncratic as well as unimportant. A literalist applies the letter of rules, ignoring their spirit, but this applies to any use of words, not just rules. For example, a "Biblical literalist" insists that the Bible is a literally true record of history rather than a collection of legends and traditional wisdom stories. A pedant insists on observing technicalities or esoteric senses of words that are mostly of academic interest, even in situations where practicality or the words' everyday meanings are clearly most relevant.
I've said "civil servants of science" to a couple friends and the meaning has been clear, but it's better suited to the UK than the US, and it requires an "of" to indicate a specific domain of application. If you just call someone a civil servant or bureaucrat, that suggests what you want, but it focuses on their occupation, not their mentality. Also, I think it's unkind to the people who perform those jobs in good faith and with common sense. People who do those jobs create stability that is extremely valuable and seldom appreciated. The overzealous application of rules should be distinguished from jobs that inherently involve rules.
A stickler for X is someone who is intransigent about X, but this does not by itself imply the kind of pusillanimous literality that you suggest. It suggests courage to uphold a higher standard in something than most people do, even, or especially, in situations not explicitly covered by rules or authority. Whether that's irrational depends on what the stickler is a stickler for. For example, a stickler for journalistic integrity (see this) maintains high standards of journalistic integrity where many journalists would cheat or compromise, while a stickler for form insists on observing rules or formalities even when reasonable people would normally bend or skip them. A stickler for rules (note the lack of an article) is dogmatic about following rules even in situations where their purpose isn't served, simply because they're "rules". A stickler for the rules suggests a person who insists on following the rules of a specific type of activity; that might be admirable or narrow-minded, depending on the rules and the situation.
By itself, a stickler is a referee who breaks up a fight, but this sense is obsolete. What all sticklers have in common is that their insistence on a high standard causes pain or annoyance to others. When you derisively call someone a stickler because their holding to a high standard caused you annoyance, without specifying what they're a stickler for, you convey that you are against any kind of high standard or integrity at all, regardless of the matter. In other words, merely calling someone a stickler as if that alone were enough to merit derision, suggests that the speaker is careless, spineless, corrupt, apathetic, a fence-rider, a cheater, a slacker, a rationalizer of petty iniquities, or any of the various synonyms for the flaw opposite the one you described—probably not what you intend.
After surveying as many alternatives as I could find, I would be delighted to see paragraph jockey gain currency in English. English is a big language, though. Maybe someone else knows of a good noun that's already well-established.