You have just been appointed as Additional Director General of Central Public Works Department. The Chief Architect of your division, who is to retire in six months, is passionately working on a very important project, the successful completion of wh

Question

You have just been appointed as Additional Director General of Central Public Works Department. The Chief Architect of your division, who is to retire in six months, is passionately working on a very important project, the successful completion of which would earn him a lasting reputation for the rest of his life.

A new lady architect, Seema, trained at Manchester School of Architecture, UK joined as Senior Architect in your division. During the briefing about the project, Seema made some suggestions which would not only add value to the project, but would also reduce completion time. This has made the Chief Architect insecure and he is constantly worried that all the credit will go to her. Subsequently, he adopted a passive and aggressive behaviour towards her and has become disrespectful to her. Seema felt it embarrassing as the Chief Architect left no chance of humiliating her. He would very often correct her in front of other colleagues and raise his voice while speaking to her. This continuous harassment has resulted in her losing confidence and self-esteem. She felt perpetually tensed, anxious and stressed. She appeared to be in awe of him since he has had a long tenure in the office and has vast experience in the area of her work.

You are aware of her outstanding academic credentials and career record in her previous organisations. However, you fear that this harassment may result in compromising her much needed contribution in this important project and may adversely impact her emotional well-being. You have also come to know from her peers that she is contemplating tendering her resignation.

(a) What are the ethical issues involved in the above case?

(b) What are the options available to you in order to complete the project as well as to retain Seema in the organization?

(c) What would be your response to Seema's predicament? What measures would you institute to prevent such occurrences from happening in your organization?

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

Analyse the case by first identifying ethical tensions in part (a) using ethical frameworks; for (b) evaluate multiple stakeholder-sensitive options with trade-offs; for (c) propose concrete administrative measures. Allocate ~30% words to (a), ~35% to (b) as it requires balancing project completion with retention, and ~35% to (c) for actionable institutional reforms. Conclude with a balanced, principle-driven synthesis.
- (a) Identifies ethical issues: workplace harassment violating dignity (Article 21), professional jealousy vs. meritocracy, senior's ego threatening institutional good, duty to protect subordinates under Conduct Rules, conflict between project completion and employee welfare
- (a) Applies ethical frameworks: utilitarianism (greatest good), deontology (duty to prevent harm), virtue ethics (professional humility), Rawlsian justice (fair treatment of junior)
- (b) Evaluates options: direct confrontation with Chief Architect, mediated dialogue, reassigning Seema to parallel role, involving HR/Internal Complaints Committee under POSH Act 2013, phased leadership transition
- (b) Balances project completion with retention: mentoring arrangement, credit-sharing mechanism, time-bound succession planning given retirement timeline
- (c) Immediate response to Seema: empathetic hearing, assurance of institutional support, temporary reporting change, counseling access, formal complaint facilitation
- (c) Institutional measures: mandatory POSH compliance, ethics training, 360-degree feedback, anonymous reporting, gender-sensitive workplace audit, leadership accountability metrics

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	4	Demonstrates precise understanding that 'analyse' requires breaking down ethical dimensions in (a), evaluating trade-offs in (b), and prescribing systemic solutions in (c); maintains analytical depth across all three sub-parts without confusing description with evaluation	Addresses all three parts but treats them descriptively; some confusion between identifying issues and solving them; directive interpretation partially correct	Misinterprets directive as mere narration or opinion-giving; misses analytical requirement entirely; may skip one or more sub-parts
Content depth & accuracy	20%	4	Accurately cites POSH Act 2013, CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964, Vishaka guidelines; correctly identifies psychological safety, vicarious liability of supervisor; demonstrates nuanced understanding of public service ethics and gender dynamics in bureaucracy	Mentions harassment generally without specific legal framework; basic understanding of ethical issues but lacks precision in rules/regs; some factual errors in institutional mechanisms	Vague references to 'ethics' without specificity; confuses private sector HR with government service rules; significant factual errors on legal protections
Structure & flow	20%	4	Clear tripartite structure with visible (a), (b), (c) headings; logical progression from diagnosis to prescription; seamless transitions between ethical analysis, option evaluation, and institutional response; maintains 250-word discipline	All parts present but poorly demarcated; some repetition between (b) and (c); word allocation skewed; readable but not optimally organized	Missing sub-parts or merged indistinguishably; chaotic sequencing; grossly exceeds word limit or severely underwrites; no discernible logical flow
Examples / case-law / data	20%	4	References Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), POSH Act 2013, relevant DoPT circulars; cites comparable cases like #MeToo in Indian media or civil service reforms; uses framework of 2nd ARC on ethics in governance	Generic mention of 'Supreme Court guidelines' without specificity; no concrete case-law; may cite private sector examples inappropriately for government context	No examples or case-law; irrelevant or fabricated references; completely misses Indian legal/administrative context
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	4	Synthesises response through lens of 'principled compromise' or 'ethical leadership'; recognises tension between individual legacy and institutional health; proposes innovative yet feasible mechanism like 'mentor-mentee credit protocol'; demonstrates mature administrative judgment	Standard conclusion restating points; acknowledges trade-offs superficially; conventional wisdom without original insight; safe but uninspiring closure	No conclusion or abrupt ending; purely prescriptive without synthesis; misses core tension between project success and human dignity; naive or authoritarian resolution

Q11

Directive word: Analyse

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Key points expected

Evaluation rubric

Practice this exact question

More from General Studies 2023 GS Paper IV