GS Paper IV — Q8
You are Vice Principal of a degree college in one of the middle-class towns. Principal has recently retired and management is…
You are Vice Principal of a degree college in one of the middle-class towns. Principal has recently retired and management is looking for his replacement. There are also feelers that the management may promote you as Principal. In the meantime, during annual examination the flying squad which came from the university caught two students red-handed involving in unfair means. A senior lecturer of the college was personally helping these students in this act. This senior lecturer also happens to be close to the management. One of the students was son of a local politician who was responsible in getting college affiliated to the present reputed university. The second student was son of a local businessman who has donated maximum funds for running of the college. You immediately informed the management regarding this unfortunate incident. The management told you to resolve the issue with flying squad at any cost. They further said that such incident will not only tarnish the image of the college but also the politician and businessman are very important personalities for the functioning of the college. You were also given hint that your further promotion to Principal depends on your capability in resolving this issue with flying squad. In the meantime, you were intimated by your administrative officer that certain members of the student union are protesting outside the college gate against the senior lecturer and the students involved in this incident and demanding strict action against defaulters.
Discuss the ethical issues involved in the case.
Critically examine the options available with you as Vice Principal. What option will you adopt and why?
(Answer in 250 words)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
आप एक मध्यवर्गीय शहर में डिग्री कॉलेज के उप-प्रधानाचार्य हैं। प्रधानाचार्य हाल ही में सेवानिवृत्त हुए हैं और प्रबंधन उनके प्रतिस्थापन की तलाश कर रहा है। यह भी माना जाता है कि प्रबंधन आपको प्रधानाचार्य के रूप में पदोन्नत कर सकता है। इस बीच वार्षिक परीक्षा के दौरान विश्वविद्यालय से आए उड़नदस्ते ने दो छात्रों को अनुचित तरीकों का उपयोग करते हुए रंगे हाथों पकड़ लिया। कॉलेज का एक वरिष्ठ व्याख्याता व्यक्तिगत रूप से इन छात्रों को इस कार्य में मदद कर रहा था। यह वरिष्ठ व्याख्याता प्रबंधन का करीबी भी माना जाता था। उनमें से एक छात्र स्थानीय राजनेता का बेटा था, जो कॉलेज को वर्तमान प्रतिष्ठित विश्वविद्यालय से संबंध कराने में मददगार रहा था। दूसरा छात्र एक स्थानीय व्यवसायी का बेटा था, जिसने कॉलेज चलाने के लिए अधिकतम धन दान दिया था। आपने इस दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण घटना के बारे में तुरंत प्रबंधन को सूचित किया। प्रबंधन ने आपको किसी भी कीमत पर उड़नदस्ते के साथ इस मुद्दे को हल करने के लिए कहा। उन्होंने आगे कहा कि इस घटना से न केवल कॉलेज की छवि खराब होगी बल्कि राजनेता और व्यवसायी भी कॉलेज के कामकाज के लिए बहुत महत्वपूर्ण व्यक्ति हैं। आपको यह भी संकेत दिया गया था कि प्रधानाचार्य के रूप में आपकी आगे की पदोन्नति उड़नदस्ते के साथ मुद्दे को हल करने की आपकी क्षमता पर निर्भर करती है। इस दौरान आपके प्रशासन अधिकारी ने सूचित किया कि छात्र संघ के कुछ सदस्य इस घटना में शामिल वरिष्ठ व्याख्याता और छात्रों के खिलाफ कॉलेज के गेट के बाहर विरोध प्रदर्शन कर रहे हैं और दोषियों के खिलाफ सख्त कार्रवाई की मांग कर रहे हैं।
इस मामले से संबंधित नैतिक मुद्दों पर चर्चा कीजिए।
उप-प्रधानाचार्य के रूप में आपके पास उपलब्ध विकल्पों का आलोचनात्मक रूप से परीक्षण कीजिए। आप कौन-सा विकल्प अपनाएंगे और क्यों?
(उत्तर 250 शब्दों में दीजिए)
Model answer
Drafted with AI by UPSC Answer Check against this question's marking rubric, to the 250-word length. UPSC does not publish answers for Mains — this is one way to score well, not an official key. How we build rubrics and answers.
(a) Ethical issues involved
- Conflict of interest: My promotion as Principal conflicts with my duty to the university and the institution.
- Academic dishonesty and nepotism: A senior lecturer abetted malpractice for the children of influential persons, subverting meritocracy and fairness to honest students.
- Institutional pressure: Management's "at any cost" demand asks me to violate the university's unfair-means ordinances and tempts me with promotion, a quid pro quo.
- Public trust: Honest students, the protesting student union and the university rely on the college's credibility.
(b) Options and the course I will adopt
- Option 1: Comply and hush up the matter. It secures promotion and patronage, but is professional misconduct, risks the college's disaffiliation and permanently destroys my moral authority.
- Option 2: Penalise the students internally and spare the lecturer. It avoids immediate friction and calms the protest, but breaches natural justice, ignores statutory norms and creates impunity for faculty.
- Option 3: Cooperate fully with the flying squad, follow university regulations and initiate action against the lecturer. It risks promotion and the donor's and politician's hostility, but restores examination sanctity and meets the legitimate demands of students.
I will adopt Option 3. I will let the flying squad's report go to the university unaltered, give my written account, recommend the lecturer's suspension and an inquiry to the governing body, inform management in writing of the college's legal obligations, and speak transparently with the protesting students while urging a peaceful protest. Integrity and academic credibility, which sustain the institution in the long run, outweigh personal ambition and short-term patronage.
How this answer will be evaluated
Framework: GS4 Ethical Dilemma Framework
What earns full marks: Identifies all ethical dimensions, weighs options critically, and provides a clear, actionable, and principled course of action.
Evaluation rubric
Each sub-part is marked on its own, against the marks and word limit printed on the paper.
- (a) Identify and analyze the ethical dilemmas and conflicts of interest.
discuss— intro → 3-4 dimensions → example → balanced close
Must cover
- Conflict between institutional integrity and personal career
- Pressure from influential stakeholders (politician/businessman)
- Duty to university regulations vs. management's 'any cost' order
- Responsibility to students and public trust
Loses marks
- Listing values without linking to the specific case
- Ignoring the role of the senior lecturer
- Preaching instead of analyzing the specific dilemma
Earns more
- Mention of nepotism and cronyism
- Reference to 'easy-but-wrong' option of suppression
- Identification of silent stakeholders (other students)
Extra mark
- Reference to specific ethical codes (e.g., UPSC Code of Conduct)
- (b) Critically evaluate options and justify the chosen course of action.
examine— intro → how/why with reasoning → evidence → conclusion
Must cover
- Weighing options: suppression vs. strict action vs. compromise
- Selection of option upholding higher right
- Immediate, short-term, and long-term action plan
- Justification based on public trust and institutional integrity
Loses marks
- Choosing the 'easy' option of suppression
- Vague course of action without specific steps
- Ignoring the impact on the college's reputation
Earns more
- Balanced approach to handling the protest
- Transparent communication with the university
- Addressing the senior lecturer's misconduct
Extra mark
- Reference to a relevant Supreme Court judgment on academic integrity
What "Critically examine" is asking you to do
Test the proposition the question puts to you and return a finding on how far it holds. Examine stems carry a claim, or ask whether something has happened, and expect evidence weighed both ways before the extent is stated — often with remedial measures attached. “Critically” is not a section added at the end: name the yardstick you are judging by — the evidence, the stated objective, a constitutional principle, a rival explanation — and let a verdict close each part of the body. Where the question quotes a claim, that verdict must land on the claim itself, accepted, qualified or rejected, and not on the theme in general.
Structure that answers it
Restate the claim as the question frames it → evidence that supports it → evidence that undercuts it → the conditions under which it holds → verdict on how far it stands
Where marks are lost
Merits in one paragraph, demerits in the next, and a conclusion calling for a balanced and holistic approach. That is a survey with the judgement left out and it holds the answer in the middle band. The opposite error is reading “critically” as permission to attack — and with the odd pairings, critically describe or critically explain, the exposition still carries most of the marks, the judgement being a layer on it rather than a substitute for it.
Practice this exact question
Write your answer and it is marked point by point against the model answer above — what you covered, what you missed, what you got wrong.
Evaluate my answer →More from General Studies 2021 GS Paper IV
- Q5 (a) "Refugees should not be turned back to the country where they would face persecution…
- Q6 (a) An independent and empowered social audit mechanism is an absolute must in every sphe…
- Q7 Sunil is a young civil servant and has a reputation for his competence, integrity, dedica…
- Q8 You are Vice Principal of a degree college in one of the middle-class towns. Principal ha…
- Q9 An elevated corridor is being constructed to reduce traffic congestion in the capital of…
- Q10 The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has quickly spread to various countries. As o…
- Q11 A reputed food product company based in India developed a food product for the internatio…