You are posted as the District Planning Officer in a newly restructured administrative zone. The state government has directed you to prepare a development expenditure plan for the coming year. Your role includes recommending discretionary allocations from the United Development Fund (UDF), about 20% of the total block-level budget. After extensive consultation with field officers and data review, your team prioritizes: ● Water access and school infrastructure in several remote, underserved tribal hamlets, and ● A major repair of a collapsing rural health centre serving five panchayats. However, two senior MLAs from urbanized parts of the district strongly push for: ● Smart LED lighting, park beautification, and road tiling in their constituencies, projects with high visibility and electoral value. They warn that neglecting their proposals may "delay coordination" during implementation. You are told off-record that the projects were "assumed to be cleared" at the political level. Your superior hints that "this isn't the year to provoke conflict," and advises you to "strike a balance." At the same time, social media pages in rural areas are questioning whether the administration only serves the politically powerful. You must now submit the final plan balancing equity, visibility, fairness, and career risk. What you prioritize will set the tone for future planning cycles. 1. What are the ethical considerations involved in this budget allocation decision? 2. What are the options available to you as the District Planning Officer? 3. What would be your final recommendation, and how would you justify it? 4. How can administrators ensure equitable development while maintaining working relationships with elected representatives?

Answered by 6 toppers · CSE 2023–2025

Syllabus: Case Studies on above issues.