Administrative Ethics: Integrated 65-Mark Practice

Answer all ten questions in either English or Hindi. Questions 1–7 carry 5 marks each, with a maximum of 50 words per answer. Questions 8–10 carry 10 marks each, with a maximum of 150 words per answer. Total: 65 marks. Suggested practice time: 60 minutes, followed by self-assessment. This original unit practice uses the RPSC 9 January 2026 indicative allocation, which may vary. It is not an official paper or a full General Studies Paper II mock. Completing both language versions does not double the marks. Attempt all questions before reading the illustrative answers; reasoned alternatives can earn credit.

Questions in English

Question 1 · 5 marks · 50 words maximum

An adult trainee has learned at home that questioning a senior is disrespectful. Explain how education can develop responsible moral judgement without simply rejecting everything learned from family or society.

Question 2 · 5 marks · 50 words maximum

Explain Rin as a traditional idea of indebtedness and obligation. Why does gratitude to a former teacher not by itself justify giving that teacher an advantage in a public selection?

Question 3 · 5 marks · 50 words maximum

“Non-attachment means an administrator need not care whether a programme works.” Assess this claim using a carefully bounded idea from the Bhagavad Gita.

Question 4 · 5 marks · 50 words maximum

A fictional adult literacy centre may publish its verified attendance and explain absences. Its coordinator proposes inflating the total to attract donations for a worthy programme. Evaluate the proposal through Gandhian means and ends.

Question 5 · 5 marks · 50 words maximum

Give one distinct Kantian reason and one distinct Millian reason for rejecting a deliberately misleading public notice. Avoid treating both theories as the same rule.

Question 6 · 5 marks · 50 words maximum

Distinguish non-partisanship from refusing to implement a lawful policy because its elected sponsors belong to a disliked party. Add one impartiality safeguard.

Question 7 · 5 marks · 50 words maximum

An office compares accuracy, cost and feasibility and chooses an equally accurate, lower-cost filing method. Separately, an employee refuses to humiliate a visitor because respect is owed even without praise. Identify the two Weberian orientations and explain why classification alone does not prove moral correctness.

Question 8 · 10 marks · 150 words maximum

Fictional case: A public adult-learning centre has one remaining supported workshop session. Its published priority is eligible first-time learners who need access support; only after that criterion is tied does larger attendance decide. Group A has eight eligible first-time learners needing the available support. Group B has twenty eligible repeat learners. An advisory AI tool ranks only predicted attendance and recommends B. The coordinator’s close colleague organises B. The coordinator may disclose the relationship and transfer selection to an independent authorised officer; that officer may apply the published priority, record reasons and arrange the next available session for the other group. A separate supervisor can review objections. No rule guarantees both groups a session today. Task: Propose a fair and reviewable response. Explain the role and limits of conscience and AI advice, address the personal relationship, and identify one remaining practical responsibility.

Question 9 · 10 marks · 150 words maximum

Fictional case: A town is consulting adults on two lawful designs for a public reading garden. One provides more quiet seating; the other provides more space for group activities. No design has been selected. The consultation has so far been available only online, and residents without internet access have had no usable way to respond. A reporter questions whether the consultation is meaningful. The officer may publish both designs and their trade-offs, provide an in-person response desk, extend consultation by five days and publish anonymised themes with a reasoned final recommendation. The officer cannot promise that the most popular option automatically wins. A colleague wants to announce that the town already supports one design to secure favourable coverage. Task: Explain a response that supports informed participation, independent media scrutiny and accountable decision-making. State what should be communicated now and what must remain explicitly undecided.

Question 10 · 10 marks · 150 words maximum

Fictional case: A public repair workshop owes payment for supplies that were delivered. Its explicitly fictional procedure requires verified receipt, not one particular signature. The delivery signature is missing, but two independent stock counts and the dated store register consistently verify the full quantity. The authorised officer may record that alternative evidence and process the verified amount on time. A colleague presents only two choices: invent the missing signature or delay all payment. If evidence conflicts, the same procedure allows payment of a verified portion, a written explanation to the supplier and referral of the disputed portion to an independent checker within two working days. These are the case’s rules, not a statement of real procurement law. Task: Identify a justified response using either duty-based or consequences-based reasoning. Is the original situation a genuine moral dilemma? Changed facts: the two stock counts disagree and no quantity can yet be verified. Explain what should change and what must not be fabricated.

Illustrative answers and self assessment

Question 1

Family and society transmit values through example, expectations and approval. Education can test those habits through evidence, discussion and reflection. The trainee can retain respect while asking reasoned questions about an unsafe instruction. Moral learning involves examining inherited norms, not replacing one unquestioned authority with another.

• Social transmission of values: 1 marks
• Critical educational process: 2 marks
• Respectful practical application: 1 marks
• Clarity and word discipline: 1 marks

Credit specific mechanisms such as modelling, discussion or testing reasons. Mere slogans about education do not explain moral learning.

Question 2

Rin expresses inherited obligations or indebtedness within particular traditions, not a modern permission to distribute public advantages. Gratitude may support respectful personal acknowledgement. Public selection instead requires relevant, consistently applied criteria and disclosure of conflicts. Personal indebtedness cannot substitute for a candidate’s merit or authorise preferential treatment.

• Historically bounded meaning of Rin: 2 marks
• Public versus personal obligation: 2 marks
• Clarity and word discipline: 1 marks

Other respectful personal responses are acceptable. Do not treat one account of Rin as a uniform doctrine of all Indian traditions or as present administrative law.

Question 3

Non-attachment to personal reward does not require careless work or indifference to harm. A bounded administrative application is to perform responsible action without making praise or gain its controlling motive. The officer should still examine results, correct failures and use lawful authority; scripture is not an administrative rulebook.

• Correct distinction about non-attachment: 2 marks
• Responsible attention to results: 2 marks
• Bounded application and clarity: 1 marks

Accept an accurate explanation grounded in action and non-attachment. A verse number alone earns no conceptual credit.

Question 4

A worthy educational aim does not make deliberate misrepresentation a truthful means. Inflating attendance manipulates donors and weakens trust in the programme. Publish verified figures, explain limitations and seek support honestly. Gandhian attention to means requires examining how the goal is pursued, not only its attractive description.

• Means–ends reasoning: 2 marks
• Application to the proposed distortion: 2 marks
• Feasible honest response: 1 marks

Do not award full credit for calling every fundraising effort unethical. The stated problem is deliberate falsification, not seeking donations.

Question 5

A Kantian objection is that deception obstructs informed choice and treats people merely as means. A Millian objection concerns harm to overall wellbeing through misleading reliance and damaged trust. The first examines the principle and respect for persons; the second weighs consequences impartially, including longer-term effects.

• Accurate Kantian reason: 2 marks
• Accurate Millian reason: 2 marks
• Explicit distinction and clarity: 1 marks

Credit a defensible universalisation or humanity-based argument; both Kantian tests are not required. Using someone merely as a means is the relevant objection, not every form of cooperation or use. Mill’s approach assesses overall welfare impartially, including longer-term trust; it is not a crude headcount or an automatic ban inferred without considering effects.

Question 6

Non-partisanship means party loyalty or hostility does not control official decisions; it does not erase responsibility to implement lawful policy. Apply published eligibility criteria consistently, document reasons and provide the authorised review route. An officer’s personal political preference is neither a selection criterion nor a lawful veto.

• Non-partisanship distinguished accurately: 2 marks
• Duty within lawful policy: 1 marks
• Specific impartiality safeguard: 1 marks
• Clarity: 1 marks

The prompt expressly specifies lawful policy. Do not turn non-partisanship into unquestioning compliance with unlawful orders.

Question 7

The filing choice illustrates instrumental rationality: weighing means for a goal. Respect maintained for its intrinsic worth illustrates value rationality, independent of success or praise. These describe orientations of action. Their ethical evaluation still requires examining the goals, commitments, treatment of persons and consequences in context.

• Instrumental orientation: 2 marks
• Intrinsic-value orientation: 2 marks
• Classification is not moral approval: 1 marks

Both examples can be ethically defensible; the question does not ask learners to condemn efficiency or to assume every sincere value is good.

Question 8

The coordinator should disclose the relationship and transfer selection to the independent authorised officer, who should select A. On the stated facts, A meets the first priority; B’s larger number matters only if that priority is tied. The AI estimate may inform scheduling, but its attendance-only objective cannot replace the published criterion. Conscience should prompt reflection on exclusion and favouritism, then be checked against evidence and authority rather than treated as personal infallibility. Record the facts, criterion and reasons; explain the outcome to both groups without unnecessary personal disclosures. Provide the supervisor’s review route and organise B’s next available session without falsely promising today’s access. Confirm that A actually receives the stated support. This preserves fair access, acknowledges B’s disappointed interest and leaves a decision that can be scrutinised and corrected.

• Applies the stated priority accurately: 2 marks
• Relationship disclosure and independent decision: 2 marks
• AI and reflective but fallible conscience: 2 marks
• Recorded reasons and review route: 2 marks
• Practical follow-through and clear answer: 2 marks

Credit equivalent safeguards within the stated powers. Do not infer corruption merely from the relationship, invent a power to cancel eligibility, or award B solely because its number is larger.

Question 9

State that no design has been chosen; favourable coverage cannot justify inventing public agreement. Publish the two options, their trade-offs, the decision process and the revised closing date. Provide the authorised in-person desk and five-day extension so lack of internet does not exclude relevant voices. Explain these steps to the reporter without demanding endorsement or treating criticism as disloyalty. Publish anonymised themes, including disagreement, rather than personal response details or a misleading claim of unanimity. The final recommendation should explain how participation and relevant reasons support the recommended option; consultation is not automatically a binding vote. Keep the outcome undecided until that process is completed; do not present a recommendation as an adopted decision. Record access problems and whether the new channel worked. Openness here enables participation and scrutiny, rather than merely publicising a decision already made.

• Truthful provisional communication: 2 marks
• Usable participation within stated powers: 2 marks
• Independent media scrutiny: 2 marks
• Reasoned recommendation without a false voting promise: 2 marks
• Traceable response and review of access: 2 marks

Credit a different clear order of the authorised steps. Do not invent a binding referendum, suppress disagreement or claim that a five-day extension automatically reaches every excluded resident. The participation channel must actually be usable.

Question 10

Record the permitted independent evidence and process the verified payment on time. Honesty and fair fulfilment of the payment obligation can both be respected; fabricating a signature or delaying everything is a false binary. A duty-based reason rejects falsification while taking the supplier’s legitimate claim seriously. Alternatively, consequences-based reasoning can explain avoidable delay, reliable records and trust without licensing deception. The original situation is not a genuine dilemma because the relevant obligations are jointly feasible under the stated procedure. When counts conflict and nothing is verified, do not invent either a signature or a supposedly verified portion. Explain the uncertainty in writing and refer the disputed amount to the independent checker within two working days. Keep the record and follow up. Evidential uncertainty requires verification; it does not itself prove incompatible moral obligations.

• Uses the expressly permitted alternative evidence: 2 marks
• Accurate duty-based or consequences-based reason: 2 marks
• Explains joint feasibility and the false binary: 2 marks
• Changed evidence changes payment handling without fabrication: 2 marks
• Written explanation and authorised independent checking: 2 marks

A philosopher’s name is optional; the reason must be accurate. In the changed facts there is no verified portion, so partial-payment permission cannot justify inventing one. The two-day rule is fictional and is not a general legal deadline.

Official scope and format references

RPSC Scheme and Syllabus dated 9 January 2026 English — Page 5, Paper II Unit I Administrative Ethics. The nine bullet groups define the unit scope.

RPSC Scheme and Syllabus dated 9 January 2026 Hindi — Page 5, Paper II Unit I. Use the official Hindi wording alongside the English syllabus.

RPSC Main Examination Question Paper Scheme 2026 — Single-page table, Paper II Unit I: indicative 7 × 5 marks and 3 × 10 marks, totalling 65. Unit-wise distribution may vary. The 60-minute duration in this practice is a teaching suggestion.