15 October: the vice principal's case
Thursday 15 October 2026
GS Paper 4 · Case study · 250 words · 20 marks
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?
(UPSC Mains 2021, GS Paper 4, Q8)
Set a timer for 14 minutes. Write your answer before you read anything below.
Open only after you have written
How to approach this case
Use the six-part shape from GS Paper 4. Part (a) covers parts 1 to 3. Part (b) covers parts 4 to 6.
| Part | For this case |
|---|---|
| 1. The situation | Management wants an exam malpractice case buried, and your promotion is the price |
| 2. The stakeholders | You, the management, the lecturer, the two students and their families, the university, the protesting students, and the honest students who are not in the room |
| 3. The ethical issues | Duty to the exam against loyalty to the employer. Your promotion against your integrity. A teacher who helped students cheat |
| 4. The options | Do as management asks. Resign. Let the university process run and act on the lecturer |
| 5. Your decision | One option, chosen |
| 6. Your reason | A reason you could give in public, to the protesting students |
What to avoid.
| Mistake | What to do instead |
|---|---|
| "There is a dilemma between personal and professional life" | Name the two duties that cannot both be met |
| Forgetting the honest students | Name them as stakeholders |
| Three options and no choice | Choose one |
| Resigning as the answer | Say why staying and acting does more good |
A model response
(a) Ethical issues
- Integrity against self-interest: my promotion depends on burying the case.
- Duty to the university against loyalty to management. The exam belongs to the university, and the flying squad acted within its powers.
- A conflict of interest: management is protecting its patrons and a lecturer close to it.
- Fairness to honest students, whose degrees lose value if cheating is excused.
- A teacher who helped students cheat has broken the trust his job rests on.
(b) Options
- Persuade the flying squad to drop the case. The college's patrons are protected and I may be promoted. The cost is my integrity and the exam's credibility, and the protesting students will know.
- Resign in protest. My conscience is clear. The students lose the one person in authority willing to act, and the case may still be buried.
- Let the university process run, and act on the lecturer. I tell management in writing that I cannot interfere with the flying squad. I recommend an inquiry into the lecturer under the college's service rules. I meet the protesting students and tell them what will happen next. The cost is probably my promotion and the management's goodwill.
My choice: option 3. The exam is a public trust, and I have no authority to settle it privately. Putting my refusal in writing protects the college if the matter reaches the university or a court. It is also the only option I could explain openly to the students at the gate.
Word count: 248.
Why this response works. Each ethical issue names the duties in conflict. Every option states its cost and who pays it. It chooses one option and gives a reason based on principle and public accountability.
Where it could be stronger. It could say how the two students should be treated. Their penalty is for the university to decide.