General Studies 2021 GS Paper IV 20 marks 250 words Compulsory Critically examine

Q8

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. (a) Discuss the ethical issues involved in the case. (b) 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। (a) इस मामले से संबंधित नैतिक मुद्दों पर चर्चा कीजिए। (b) 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)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 General Studies questions

Directive word: Critically examine

This question asks you to critically examine. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Critically examine requires balanced analysis with judgment. Structure: brief context → ethical issues (part a) → multiple options with merits/demerits (part b) → chosen option with justification → conclusion on institutional integrity vs personal career.

Key points expected

Conflict of interest: personal promotion vs institutional duty; management pressure vs academic integrity
Multiple stakeholders: students' future, lecturer's accountability, politician/business influence, student union demands
Ethical issues: cheating, favoritism, nepotism, institutional corruption, compromised examination fairness
Options: comply with management, support flying squad fully, negotiate middle path, escalate to university/regulators
Reference to UGC regulations on examination malpractices and AICTE norms on institutional autonomy
Civil service values: integrity, objectivity, courage of conviction, public interest over private gain

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	4	Distinguishes between 'discuss' (part a) and 'critically examine' (part b); presents balanced analysis of options with explicit evaluation criteria; does not merely list but weighs consequences	Addresses both parts but treats 'critically examine' descriptively; options listed without systematic evaluation; some conflation of the two directive demands	Misses the critical dimension entirely; either ignores part (a) or (b); treats as single 'suggest' question; no analytical weighing of options
Content depth & accuracy	20%	4	Covers all stakeholder conflicts; identifies specific ethical frameworks (deontological vs consequentialist); references UGC/AICTE examination norms; addresses power asymmetry between Vice Principal and management	Mentions major ethical issues but superficially; generic reference to 'honesty' and 'corruption'; misses structural issues of private college funding dependencies	Reduces to simple 'cheating is bad' narrative; ignores management pressure dimension; no recognition of institutional capture by donors/politicians
Structure & flow	20%	4	Clear demarcation between (a) and (b); logical progression from issue identification → stakeholder mapping → option generation → criteria-based selection → decision; 250-word discipline evident	Both parts addressed but boundaries blurred; options embedded within ethical discussion without clear separation; some repetition between sections	Disorganized; jumps between issues and solutions; no clear part (a)/(b) distinction; exceeds word limit indicators or severely underdeveloped
Examples / case-law / data	20%	4	Cites UGC (Promotion of Academic Integrity and Prevention of Plagiarism) Regulations 2018; references Vyapam-like systemic fraud; mentions NAAC accreditation criteria; uses comparable case of institutional autonomy vs state control	Generic mention of 'RTI' or 'UGC' without specificity; no concrete precedents; relies on hypothetical 'similar cases'	No external reference; purely personal opinion; anachronistic or irrelevant examples; confuses school-level with higher education norms
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	4	Chooses option with clear ethical justification (e.g., supporting flying squad with institutional reform proposal); acknowledges personal cost; suggests systemic solution (grievance redressal, donor distance policy); demonstrates 'civil servant as institution-builder' vision	Selects option but justification weak or evasive; avoids personal career consequence discussion; conclusion generic about 'doing the right thing'	No clear option selected; or selects unethical option without critical awareness; conclusion contradicts body; purely aspirational without operational feasibility

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →