Institute Director: Funding vs. Ethics

Identifying the Ethical Dilemmas

The core ethical dilemmas are:

• Conflict of Interest: The PS’s offer creates a direct conflict between my duty to ensure a fair and transparent selection process and the potential benefit of securing funds for the institute.
• Compromised Integrity: Succumbing to the PS’s pressure would undermine the institute’s reputation and the integrity of the selection process.
• Abuse of Power: The PS is leveraging the functionary’s position and control over funds to influence a professional decision.
• Violation of Principles of Governance: The situation violates principles of transparency, objectivity, and accountability.

Applying Ethical Principles

Several ethical principles are relevant here:

• Integrity: Maintaining honesty and strong moral principles.
• Objectivity: Making decisions based on facts and merit, free from bias.
• Accountability: Being responsible for one’s actions and decisions.
• Transparency: Ensuring openness and clarity in the selection process.
• Rule of Law: Adhering to established rules and regulations.

Course of Action

I would take the following steps:

1. Politely but Firmly Decline the Offer: I would immediately inform the PS that I cannot and will not entertain any intervention in the selection process. I would emphasize the importance of meritocracy and the institute’s commitment to a fair and transparent process.
2. Document the Incident: I would meticulously document the phone call, including the date, time, the PS’s name, the details of the offer, and my response. This documentation is crucial for future reference and potential investigation.
3. Inform Higher Authority: I would bring the matter to the attention of a higher authority within the government, such as the Secretary of the Department of Education or the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister, explaining the situation and the potential for undue influence.
4. Ensure a Rigorous and Transparent Selection Process: I would ensure that the interview panel adheres strictly to the established criteria for selection. The entire process, including the scoring and evaluation, would be documented and open to scrutiny.
5. Seek Funds Through Proper Channels: I would continue to pursue the institute’s funding proposals through legitimate channels, emphasizing the institute’s achievements and the potential benefits of the modernization projects.

Potential Consequences and Mitigation

There are potential consequences to this course of action:

• Delay in Funding: The functionary might delay or deny the institute’s funding proposals.
• Strain on Relationships: This could strain the relationship between the institute and the government functionary.

To mitigate these consequences, I would:

• Maintain Professional Communication: Continue to engage with the functionary in a professional and respectful manner, focusing on the institute’s merits and the importance of the funding proposals.
• Explore Alternative Funding Sources: Actively seek alternative funding sources, such as private donors or international organizations.

Legal and Institutional Framework

This situation is governed by several principles and regulations:

• Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964: These rules emphasize integrity, impartiality, and avoidance of conflicts of interest.
• Public Procurement Act, 2012 (if applicable): Principles of transparency and fairness in public procurement apply to the selection process.
• The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013: This act provides a mechanism for investigating allegations of corruption and abuse of power.