Public Administration 2022 Paper II 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Examine

Q5

Answer the following in about 150 words. 10×5=50 (a) Examine the lateral entry recruitment in government in the context of Part XIV of the Indian Constitution. 10 (b) Examine the role of Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in protecting the interests of the investors in securities. 10 (c) Citizens charters in India have not succeeded in their objectives in making administrative system citizen centric. Do you agree ? Give reasons. 10 (d) Following the onset of globalisation, the traditional bureaucratic model appears to have lost its significance. Comment. 10 (e) "The financial suitability of the Urban local bodies can become a reality only when they receive their due share of public finances." Explain. 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक का लगभग 150 शब्दों में उत्तर दीजिए। 10×5=50 (a) भारतीय संविधान के XIV वें भाग के संदर्भ में सरकार में पार्श्व प्रवेश भर्ती का परीक्षण कीजिए। 10 (b) प्रतिभूतियों में निवेशकों के हितों को सुरक्षित करने में भारतीय प्रतिभूति और विनिमय बोर्ड (सेबी) की भूमिका का परीक्षण कीजिए। 10 (c) भारत में नागरिक अधिकारपत्र प्रशासनिक व्यवस्था को नागरिक केंद्रित बनाने के उसके उद्देश्य में सफल नहीं हुए हैं। कारण दीजिए। 10 (d) भूमण्डलीकरण के प्रारम्भ के अनुगाम में, पारम्परिक नौकरशाही प्रतिमान अपने महत्व को खोता प्रतीत होता है। टिप्पणी कीजिए। 10 (e) "नगरीय स्थानीय निकायों की वित्तीय उपयुक्तता तभी वास्तविक बन सकती है जब उन्हें सार्वजनिक वित्त में उचित हिस्सा प्राप्त हो।" व्याख्या कीजिए। 10

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 Public Administration questions

Directive word: Examine

This question asks you to 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

The directive 'examine' requires critical analysis with evidence across all five parts. Allocate approximately 30 words per sub-part (150 words total, ~3 minutes each). For (a), link Articles 309-311 with lateral entry debates; (b) focus on SEBI's regulatory mechanisms; (c) present balanced critique with examples; (d) contrast Weberian model with post-globalisation realities; (e) connect 74th Amendment with fiscal decentralisation. Structure each part as: brief context → core argument → specific example → concluding observation.

Key points expected

  • (a) Lateral entry and Part XIV: Article 309 (recruitment rules), Article 311 (safeguards), tension between domain expertise and constitutional protections, ARC-II recommendations on lateral entry at Joint Secretary level
  • (b) SEBI's investor protection: disclosure requirements, insider trading regulations (SEBI Act 1992), SCORES portal, recent examples like Sahara case, algorithmic trading safeguards
  • (c) Citizens Charter critique: 7-point charter format, Sevottam model limitations, lack of legal enforceability, success stories (Bangalore RTI) vs failures (rural areas), 2nd ARC recommendations
  • (d) Globalisation and bureaucracy: New Public Management challenges, networked governance, agencification, relevance of IAS in regulatory roles, hybrid administrative models
  • (e) ULB finances: Article 280 Finance Commission devolution, own revenue sources (property tax), JnNURM/Smart Cities funding, 14th FC recommendations, municipal bond examples (Ahmedabad)

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Accurately identifies constitutional provisions (Articles 309-311 for lateral entry), SEBI's statutory functions, citizens charter components, Weberian bureaucracy features, and 74th Amendment fiscal provisions; no factual errors across any sub-partIdentifies most concepts correctly but misses specific constitutional articles or conflates SEBI with RBI functions; minor inaccuracies in ULB constitutional statusMajor conceptual errors such as confusing Part XIV with Part IX, misidentifying SEBI's establishment year, or treating citizens charters as legally enforceable documents
Theoretical anchor20%10Deploys relevant theories: Weber's ideal-type bureaucracy for (d), principal-agent theory for SEBI regulation, New Public Management for globalisation critique, fiscal federalism for ULB finances; connects theory to practice in each partMentions theories superficially without clear application; generic reference to 'good governance' without theoretical specificity; conflates NPM with privatisationNo theoretical framework; purely descriptive answers; confuses citizens charter with social audit; treats lateral entry as purely administrative without constitutional dimensions
Indian administrative examples20%10Specific illustrations: lateral entry specialists in NITI Aayog/NITI Aayog 2.0, SEBI's action in NSE co-location case, Bangalore's citizens charter success, Gujarat's municipal bonds, post-1991 civil service reforms; examples are contemporary and accurateGeneric references to 'some states' or 'recent cases' without naming; outdated examples (pre-2010); mixes up SEBI orders with SAT judgmentsNo Indian examples; hypothetical illustrations; incorrect attribution (e.g., citing 73rd Amendment for urban bodies); foreign examples dominating Indian context
Reform / policy angle20%10Critically evaluates ongoing reforms: lateral entry's 2018-2023 implementation assessment, SEBI's 2023 regulatory reforms, citizens charter 2.0 proposals, post-NPM administrative reforms, 15th Finance Commission ULB recommendations; balances achievements with gapsLists reforms without critical evaluation; misses recent developments (post-2020); one-sided praise or criticism without nuanceNo reform discussion; purely historical narrative; ignores ARC-II, Punchhi Commission, or current Finance Commission recommendations entirely
Conclusion & forward look20%10Synthesises across parts: constitutional adaptability for lateral entry, regulatory state evolution, participatory governance imperative, administrative reform continuity, and fiscal empowerment as democratic deepening; offers specific, actionable forward recommendationsGeneric concluding statements ('need for political will'); repetitive summary without synthesis; no forward-looking elementNo conclusion; abrupt endings; contradictory final statements; conclusions unrelated to question parts; purely aspirational without grounding in administrative 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 →

More from Public Administration 2022 Paper II