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?
Approach · directive: “discuss / critically examine”
What it asks · (a) Identify the ethical issues; (b) examine the options critically, choose one and justify it.
The question has 3 parts — answer each
- (a) Discuss the ethical issues involved in the case
- (b) Critically examine the options open to me as Vice Principal
- (b) State the option you will adopt and why
Open with · The Radhakrishnan Commission warned that examinations can corrupt the moral standards of university life; here the guardians of the examination are the corrupters, and promotion is the bait.
Cover
- (a) Issues: exam integrity and merit against cheating; a lecturer's abetment; management's pressure to hide the truth; a politician's and donor's influence; promotion as temptation.
- (a) Also: institutional reputation against honesty, fairness to honest students, proportionate treatment of the two students, and the student union's demand for strict action.
- (b) Yield and settle with the squad: protects promotion and reputation briefly, but is dishonest and risks penalty, loss of affiliation and public trust.
- (b) Cooperate fully with the squad and university: upholds integrity and rules and deters cheating, but may cost promotion and management's goodwill.
- (b) Staying passive avoids conflict but evades responsibility; escalating to the governing body or university if management persists is a legitimate last step.
- (b) Adopt: cooperate transparently, recommend action against the lecturer, explain that concealment is riskier, keep records, and assure the student union of due process.
- Values: honesty, courage, fairness and accountability; integrity outweighs promotion, and an institution of learning must teach by example.
- Anchors: Radhakrishnan Commission on examinations corrupting university morals; Nolan integrity against obligations; Gandhi's seven social sins (knowledge without character).
Close with · An institution that teaches must first be honest about its examinations; a lost promotion leaves intact the authority to say no.
Add value (verified)
- The University Education Commission (chaired by S. Radhakrishnan) held that examinations tend to corrupt the moral standards of university life and that their reform was the single most needed reform in university education. Report of the University Education Commission (Radhakrishnan Commission), Government of India, Ministry of Education — PDF of the report hosted by educationforallinindia.com ↗“how they tend to corrupt the Moral standards of university life. 2. Reform Essential.-We are convinced that if we are to suggest one single reform in university education it should be that of the examinations.”
- Nolan principle of integrity: holders of public office must avoid any obligation to those who might try to influence them inappropriately, and must not act for personal or family gain. The Seven Principles of Public Life — Committee on Standards in Public Life, GOV.UK ↗“1.2 Integrity Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.”
- Gandhi published the seven social sins in Young India (22 October 1925): politics without principle, wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice. Seven Social Sins — mkgandhi.org (Bombay Sarvodaya Mandal & Gandhi Research Foundation) ↗“Seven Social Sins Politics without Principle Wealth Without Work Pleasure Without Conscience Knowledge without Character Commerce without Morality Science without Humanity Worship without Sacrifice - Young India, 22-10-1925”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2021, GS Paper IV — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 1 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 373 words (UPSC limit 250) · Minimalist IAS
The Radhakrishnan Commission warned that examinations can "corrupt the Moral standards of university life" and made their reform its single most needed change. Here the guardians of the examination are the corrupters, and my promotion is the bait.
Stakeholders
- Honest students; the two students and the lecturer; the squad and university; management, politician and donor; the student union; and I.
(a) Ethical issues involved
- Integrity of examinations: cheating steals from every honest student, and a lecturer's abetment corrupts the teacher's role itself.
- Conflict of interest: my promotion hangs on the outcome, and "resolve at any cost" means obstructing a lawful process. The Nolan principles warn office-holders against placing themselves "under any obligation" to those who might influence their work.
- Money and power: the politician's and donor's services do not buy their sons an exemption.
- Due process and proportion: the students face the university's unfair-means rules, the lecturer's culpability is greater, and the union's demand must not become mob justice.
- Reputation versus honesty: a cover-up that leaks later hurts the college more than the truth.
(b) Options examined
| Option | Gain | Ethical cost |
|---|---|---|
| Settle with the squad | Promotion, short-term image | Dishonesty; affiliation at risk |
| Stay passive | No confrontation | Evades duty; unrest grows |
| Cooperate and manage fallout | Integrity, deterrence | May cost the promotion |
- Critically: the first obstructs a statutory process and teaches that rules bend for money; the second abandons my office's authority; the third is lawful, and its cost falls on me alone.
(b) The option I adopt, and why
- The third: forward the squad's report intact, recommend the lecturer's suspension pending inquiry, let the students face the prescribed procedure, record management's instruction and my written reply, and assure the union of due process.
- Why: a promotion earned by a cover-up would leave me hostage to the management, the lecturer and two families for my whole career. The seven social sins listed in Gandhi's Young India (1925) include "Knowledge without Character"; a college that trades results commits it.
- Systemic fix: CCTV, invigilator rotation, a fixed penalty for abetment, and a grievance route for staff under pressure.
An institution that teaches must first be honest about its examinations. If the promotion is lost, what remains is the authority to say no, which no chair can confer.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.