2013 · GS Paper 4 · Q12 · 20 marks
You are heading a leading technical institute of the country. The institute is planning to convene an interview panel shortly under your chairmanship for selection of the post of professors. A few days before the interview, you get a call from the Personal Secretary (PS) of a senior government functionary seeking your intervention in favour of the selection of a close relative of the functionary for this post. The PS also informs you that he is aware of the long pending and urgent proposals of your institute for grant of funds for modernization, which are awaiting the functionary's approval. He assures you that he would get these proposals cleared. (a) What are the options available to you? (b) Evaluate each of these options and choose the option which you would adopt, giving reasons.
In short
The institute head should decline the functionary's request, record the call, run a transparent merit-based selection and pursue the modernisation funds through the formal channel. This reconciles Institutional Welfare with Meritocratic Fairness, as T.S.R. Subramanian (2013) asked officers to record oral instructions.
Model answer
Ghissu Editorial · Verified 4 Oct 2026 · 304 words
(i) CAPITULATE [Compromised-Hybrid]
Acceding brings quick funds but is Moral Myopia and a corrupt bargain.
(ii) CONFRONT [Strict-Legal]
Barring the relative and complaining signals zero tolerance but punishes a candidate for a relative's act.
(iii) EVADE [Procedural-Evasive]
Stepping aside avoids conflict but is Moral Escapism that shifts pressure to the panel.
(iv) COMPROMISE [Empathetic-Humanitarian]
Declining quietly spares embarrassment, but Motivated Blindness leaves the pressure unrecorded.
(v) RECONCILE ✓ [Balanced]
Decline politely, record the call and run a merit-based selection (recommended).
Decline and document
Record the call to the Board of Governors, as T.S.R. Subramanian (2013) [case] asked officers to record oral instructions.
Tamper-proof panel
A scoring rubric, external experts and recorded interviews assess the relative like any candidate, the Nolan Committee's [committee/report] Objectivity in practice.
Funds on merit
Pursue the modernisation file through the formal channel and escalate any retaliation on the record.
This model answer is indicative and the model can make mistakes; please verify key facts independently.
Practise this question
1Get the answer sheet
Sized for this question.
2Write your answer
Timed, by hand.
3Get it marked
Your score and what to fix.
This chapter in the exam
Social Sector Dilemmas7 questions
Asked in 5 of 14 sittings since 2013
- 2026Lata, a mother of two children, was admitted to a hospital for acute abdominal pain. Her sister-in-law, Sujatha, accompanied her. Dr. Mansi examined Lata and recommended a diagnostic laparoscopy. Lata's consent was taken to conduct the medical procedure under general anesthesia. During the laparoscopy, Dr. Mansi's team discovered a tumor in Lata's uterus. A closer examination suggested that the tumor could be malignant. One option before Dr. Mansi was to extract a sample for biopsy. In that case, if the tumor was malignant, Lata would have to undergo another surgery for removal of the uterus. An alternative was to remove the uterus immediately. Dr. Mansi had to take a quick decision. As Lata was under general anesthesia, Dr. Mansi explained the situation to Sujatha. Sujatha agreed with Dr. Mansi's recommendations for a hysterectomy, wherein Lata's uterus would be removed to avoid the risk and pain of undergoing another surgery. Dr. Mansi removed Lata's uterus after receiving Sujatha's consent in writing. Lata was informed of this the next day. She was very upset and felt betrayed as she had not consented to the removal of her uterus. Lata complained to the police who tried to convince her that Dr. Mansi had acted with good intention to help a patient. Sujatha was of the same opinion, however Lata was not convinced and decided to approach the court. (a) Discuss the ethical issues involved in this case. (b) Discuss the moral conduct of the doctor in this situation.
- 2026Vikas is a government officer with over a decade of service in public administration. He has recently moved as the District Collector (DC) of Nainipura, a remote hilly district bordering a forest. Due to Nainipura's low levels of economic development, one of his major duties is to ensure proper functioning of the public distribution system (PDS) amongst the economically weaker sections (EWS). During his on-site visits, Vikas was apprised of a typical administrative challenge in operating the PDS. To prevent leakages, all distributors were required to carry out real-time biometric identification of the beneficiaries, whose fingerprints were tallied with identity card records. This was creating problems as the operating system sometimes rejected fingerprint matching in the cases of growing children, manual labourers and senior citizens. The problem was further compounded in periods of low WiFi connectivity. The distributors, in such cases, resorted to personal discretion when they could identify the recipient. Vikas had to address this problem on priority. Strictly adhering to government regulations would ensure fiscal probity but would greatly trouble the proposed beneficiary, i.e., EWS. It may even impinge on their fundamental right to life as per Article 21 of the Constitution. Conversely, leaving the resolution solely to the discretion of the distributors could lead to misuse and leakages. (a) What are the options open to Vikas? How should he balance fiscal probity with empathy towards the designated beneficiaries? (b) Discuss the ethics of using technology as a gatekeeper for welfare schemes.
All 7 questions, sorted by sub-topic, with model answers and practice.
Question from the official UPSC Civil Services (Main) Examination 2013 paper. Answer written by Ghissu's engine and checked against our editorial standards. Found an error? Tell us and we correct it within 48 hours.