General Studies 2022 GS Paper IV 20 marks 250 words Compulsory Critically evaluate

Q10

You have done MBA from a reputed institution three years back but could not get campus placement due to COVID-19 generated recession. However, after a lot of persuasion and series of competitive tests including written and interview, you managed to get a job in a leading shoe company. You have aged parents who are dependent and staying with you. You also recently got married after getting this decent job. You were allotted the Inspection Section which is responsible for clearing the final product. In first one year, you learnt your job well and was appreciated for your performance by the management. The company is doing good business for last five years in domestic market and this year it is decided even to export to Europe and Gulf countries. However, one large consignment to Europe was rejected by their Inspecting Team due to certain poor quality and was sent back. The top management ordered that ibid consignment to be cleared for the domestic market. As a part of Inspecting Team, you observed the glaring poor quality and brought to the knowledge of the Team Commander. However, the top management advised all the members of the team to overlook these defects as the management cannot bear such a huge loss. Rest of the team members except you promptly signed and cleared the consignment for domestic market, overlooking glaring defects. You again brought to the knowledge of the Team Commander that such consignment, if cleared even for domestic market, will tarnish the image and reputation of the company and will be counter-productive in the long run. However, you were further advised by the top management that if you do not clear the consignment, the company will not hesitate to terminate your services citing certain innocuous reasons. (a) Under the given conditions, what are the options available to you as a member of the Inspecting Team? (b) Critically evaluate each of the options listed by you. (c) What option would you adopt and why? (d) What are the ethical dilemmas being faced by you? (e) What can be the consequences of overlooking the observations raised by the Inspecting Team? (Answer in 250 words)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

आपने तीन साल पहले एक प्रतिष्ठित संस्थान से एम. बी. ए. किया है लेकिन कोविड-19 से उत्पन्न मंदी के कारण कैंपस प्लेसमेंट नहीं मिल सका। मगर, बहुत अनुभव तथा लिखित और साक्षात्कार सहित बहुत सारी प्रतियोगी परीक्षाओं की मुश्किल के बाद, आप एक अग्रणी जूता कंपनी में नौकरी पाने में सफल रहे। आपके वृद्ध माता-पिता हैं, जो अशक्त हैं और आपके साथ रह रहे हैं। आपने भी हाल ही में यह शालीन नौकरी पाकर शादी की है। आपको निरीक्षण अनुभाग में नियुक्त किया गया था, जो अंतिम उत्पाद को मंजूरी देने के लिए जवाबदेह है। पहले एक वर्ष में, आपने अपना काम अच्छी तरह से सीखा और प्रबंधन द्वारा आपके प्रदर्शन की सराहना की गई। कंपनी पिछले पांच साल से घरेलू बाजार में अच्छा कारोबार कर रही है और इस साल यूरोप और खाड़ी देशों को निर्यात करने का भी फैसला किया गया है। हालांकि, यूरोप के लिए एक बड़ी खेप को उनके निरीक्षण दल द्वारा कुछ खराब गुणवत्ता के कारण अस्वीकार कर दिया गया और वापस भेज दिया गया था। शीर्ष प्रबंधन ने आदेश दिया कि घरेलू बाजार के लिए पूर्वोक्त खेप की मंजूरी दी जाए। निरीक्षण दल के एक अंग के रूप में आपने स्पष्ट खराब गुणवत्ता को देखा और टीम कमांडर के संज्ञान में लाया। हालांकि, शीर्ष प्रबंधन ने टीम के सभी सदस्यों को इन कमियों को नजर-अंदाज करने की सलाह दी क्योंकि इतना बड़ा नुकसान प्रबंधन नहीं सह सकता। आपके अलावा टीम के बाकी सदस्यों ने स्पष्ट दोषों को नजर-अंदाज करते हुए तुरंत हस्ताक्षर कर दिए और घरेलू बाजार के लिए खेप को मंजूरी दे दी। आपने फिर से टीम कमांडर के संज्ञान में लाया कि इस तरह की खेप की अगर घरेलू बाजार के लिए भी मंजूरी दे दी जाती है, तो कंपनी की छवि और प्रतिष्ठा को धक्का लगेगा तथा लंबे समय में प्रतिकूल असर होगा। हालांकि, आपके शीर्ष प्रबंधन द्वारा आगे सलाह दी गई थी कि यदि आप खेप को मंजूरी नहीं देते हैं, तो कंपनी कुछ अहानिकर कारणों का हवाला देते हुए आपकी सेवा को समाप्त करने में संकोच नहीं करेगी। (a) दी गई शर्तों के तहत, निरीक्षण दल के सदस्य के रूप में आपके लिए कौन-से विकल्प उपलब्ध हैं? (b) आपके द्वारा सूचीबद्ध प्रत्येक विकल्प का समालोचनात्मक मूल्यांकन कीजिए। (c) आप कौन-सा विकल्प अपनाएंगे और क्यों? (d) आप किन नैतिक दुविधाओं का सामना कर रहे हैं? (e) निरीक्षण दल द्वारा उठाई गई टिप्पणियों की अनदेखी के क्या परिणाम हो सकते हैं? (उत्तर 250 शब्दों में दीजिए)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 General Studies questions

Directive word: Critically evaluate

This question asks you to critically evaluate. 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 evaluate demands balanced assessment of options with reasoned judgment. Structure: Brief context (20 words) → enumerate options for (a) with ~40 words → critical evaluation for (b) with ~60 words → chosen option with justification for (c) with ~50 words → ethical dilemmas for (d) with ~40 words → consequences for (e) with ~40 words. Ensure all five sub-parts are addressed within 250 words.

Key points expected

  • (a) Options: Sign under protest, refuse and face termination, escalate to board/ombudsman, whistleblower complaint under Companies Act/Satyamev Jayate, seek legal counsel
  • (b) Critical evaluation: Signing under protest preserves job but enables complicity; refusal upholds integrity but risks livelihood; escalation may work if governance is strong; whistleblowing offers protection under PIDPI Act 2011 but carries social costs
  • (c) Preferred option: Refuse to sign + escalate through proper channels with documented evidence, citing long-term reputational damage and fiduciary duty to shareholders
  • (d) Ethical dilemmas: Personal survival vs professional integrity (Kantian duty); loyalty to employer vs duty to consumers; short-term loss prevention vs long-term stakeholder value; obedience to hierarchy vs moral autonomy
  • (e) Consequences: Consumer harm, product liability suits, regulatory penalties (BIS/consumer courts), permanent export ban, erosion of brand equity, potential criminal liability under Section 304A IPC for negligence causing death

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%4Demonstrates that 'critically evaluate' in (b) requires weighing pros/cons of each option, not mere listing; integrates 'evaluate' across all sub-parts with judgment-based reasoning rather than descriptive narrationLists options descriptively with superficial pros/cons; treats 'critically evaluate' as synonymous with 'explain' without genuine comparative assessmentMisreads directive as simple 'enumerate' or 'describe'; provides narrative response without evaluative framework or balanced judgment
Content depth & accuracy20%4Covers all five sub-parts with substantive content; references specific legal frameworks (PIDPI Act 2011, Companies Act 2013 Section 134, BIS standards, Consumer Protection Act 2019); distinguishes between ethical theories (deontology vs utilitarianism vs virtue ethics)Addresses all sub-parts but with generic content; mentions 'whistleblowing' or 'integrity' without specific legal/ethical grounding; conflates ethical dilemmas with practical difficultiesOmits 1-2 sub-parts entirely or addresses superficially; confuses ethical dilemmas with emotional stress; no reference to corporate governance or legal remedies
Structure & flow20%4Clear sub-part demarcation (a)-(e) with logical progression from options → evaluation → decision → dilemmas → consequences; tight word economy with no redundancy; integrated narrative despite multi-part formatAddresses sub-parts but with uneven length (e.g., excessive on (a), skimping on (b) or (e)); some repetition between evaluation and chosen option; paragraph breaks unclearNo visible structure; sub-parts merged haphazardly or omitted; rambling narrative exceeding word limit; no logical connection between options listed and option chosen
Examples / case-law / data20%4Cites relevant precedents: Maggi noodles ban (2015) for quality-reputation nexus; Satyendra Dubey case for whistleblower protection context; Johnson & Johnson talc litigation for long-term liability; references BIS certification requirements for export goodsGeneric reference to 'corporate scandals' without naming; mentions 'consumer rights' without specific Act; alludes to whistleblower protection without PIDPI Act specificityNo examples or case references; purely abstract reasoning; irrelevant examples from unrelated domains (political, historical) that don't illuminate corporate ethics
Conclusion & analytical edge20%4Synthesizes personal ethical choice with systemic reform suggestion; demonstrates 'principled pragmatism'—refusing complicity while pursuing institutional remedies; acknowledges complexity without moral absolutism; ends on stakeholder welfare and professional dutyStates chosen option without compelling justification; conclusion merely summarizes previous points; either too idealistic (ignoring job loss) or too pragmatic (capitulating to pressure)No clear option chosen or justification provided; ends with vague platitudes about 'doing the right thing'; contradictory stance across sub-parts; ignores 250-word constraint entirely

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 →

More from General Studies 2022 GS Paper IV