Q. 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 came from the university caught two students red-handed involving in unfair means. A senior lecturer of the college was personally helping these student 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 immealately 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.
o Discuss the ethical issues involved in the case.
o Critically examine the options available with you as Vice Principal. What option will you adopt and why?
Question from UPSC Mains 2021 GS4 Paper
Model Answer:
The case highlights a severe conflict between personal ambition, institutional pressures, and academic probity, testing my integrity and leadership as Vice Principal.
Ethical Issues Involved
- Integrity vs. Ambition: Hushing up malpractice for a promotion violates the core Nolan Principle of Objectivity and Integrity.
- Academic Probity vs. Patronage: Capitulating to financial (businessman) and political (politician) clout over merit and fairness.
- Breach of Trust: The senior lecturer aiding cheating destroys the sacred teacher-student institutional bond.
- Justice and Equity: Ensuring powerful defaulters face standard disciplinary actions without favoritism.
Options Available
- Comply with Management & Influence Flying Squad
- Merits: Secures promotion; avoids immediate management backlash.
- Demerits: Illegal (Prevention of Corruption Act), completely unethical, and will escalate ongoing student protests.
- Resign to Avoid Conflict
- Merits: Escapes the immediate ethical dilemma and stress.
- Demerits: Acts as escapism and dereliction of duty, failing the institution.
- Cooperate with Squad & Enforce Discipline
- Merits: Upholds the rule of law, satisfies rightful student demands, establishes long-term deterrence.
- Demerits: Risks personal promotion, funding loss, and political retribution.
Adopted Course of Action & Justification
I will adopt Option 3, guided by Kant’s Categorical Imperative (doing one’s duty irrespective of personal consequences).
- Facilitate the Squad: Ensure the flying squad files an unhindered, objective report against the students per University/UGC guidelines.
- Disciplinary Action: Issue a show-cause notice and immediately suspend the complicit senior lecturer pending an internal inquiry.
- Pacify Protesters: Address the student union transparently, assuring them of strict, rule-based disciplinary action to restore order.
- Counsel Management: Persuade the management that a cover-up risks severe legal action and permanent disaffiliation, which outweighs losing short-term patronage.
Sacrificing personal ambition for institutional probity demonstrates true moral courage, ensuring the college’s long-term credibility and academic excellence remain completely untarnished.
