GS4 · 20 marks · 250 words

You are working in the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and posted in a rural area. There are many government programs being run by your Ministry under which people are given financial help after verification of the required documents. Every day you encounter some cases, in which people from weaker section are not able to avail the benefits due to faulty or insufficient documents. However, there are also some instances of people trying to forge documents, which makes verification important. What will be your approach towards cases wherein those from the weaker section are not able to avail the benefits due to insufficient documents - will you go by the rule book or exercise discretion in selected cases based on your experience. Discuss both options available to you and evaluate them.

Answered by 4 toppers · CSE 2017–2018

Syllabus: Case Studies on above issues.

How toppers approached it

From all 4 answers · about 360 words.

Opening

  • No separate opening3 of 4
  • A definition1 of 4

Body

  • Points3 of 4
  • Points and prose1 of 4

Close

  • A way forward3 of 4
  • No separate close1 of 4

The toppers’ answers

Karnati Varun ReddyAIR 7 · CSE 2018 · 353 wordsTheir whole copy

Opening

Case→ To do justice to weaker sections, by acting with compassion, public service ethos to make sure they get financial help.

Option (a) → Going by rule book.

Ethical issues: it strengthens the public attitude about bureaucracy as apathy, low public service commitment, Government only for rich etc.

Body · points

  • Also weaker sections require compassionate treatment, when constitution allows affirmative action.

Merits of going by rule book

• I will not be violating law, thus can hold myself accountable to superiors, courts against allegations of abuse of power.

• It will arrest incidents of fake beneficiaries trying to avail services with insufficient documents.

However it doesn't meet the organisational aims to do justice to weaker sections.

Option (b) → Discretion in selected cases based on experience

Merits • Ensures weaker sections can avail financial help. • Shows that Government stands committed to help poor and empower them.

Demerits • Lot of subjectivity if discretion is used based on experience.

This may lead to allegations of abuse of power, fake beneficiaries benefitting due to overlook mistakes etc which cannot be justified before public or courts or department.

Therefore not the way forward, it might reinforce public attitudes of abuse of discretion by Government officials.

Option (c) → Way forward

(i) Assist the weaker sections with insufficient documents by providing information regarding how they can meet the eligibility, where to get other required documents.

(ii) Organise special camps in coordination with revenue department to provide these documents in a swift manner to weaker sections.

(iii) Then enroll them on to the financial help scheme.

Merit (a) Measures being taken to provide documents to the weaker sections with much comfort to them. (b) Shows compassion, commitment towards empowerment of poor. (c) Also in line with organisational duty of "Public Service".

Demerit (a) Its success depends on the active participation of other departments like Revenue etc. Therefore there might be delay.

Close · a way forward

But it is the best way forward, so that while enrollment to the scheme is made objectively according to Government eligibility criteria and also weaker sections are provided additional special assistance to avail benefits meeting scheme goals.

More on Rules versus Compassion

A case in which following the rule causes harm and bending it causes a different harm.

All GS4 questions on Rules versus Compassion