Revision summary
Rajeev faced a life on the road against a government interview clock. Leaving the injured would have used a dying person as a ladder to a post. Duty, virtue, and the fact that he was the only helper justify the rescue. The lost chance is tragic; it does not make the act wrong. Good Samaritan law and a reschedule path should exist so the State does not punish rescue.
Model answer
Introduction
Rajeev faced a clash between a personal career good and a stranger’s life. In that hour the duty to rescue was the higher human action, even though the cost to him was real and bitter.
Body
The ethical situation
- A severely injured person on the road is an emergency of life, not a convenient charity.
- Bystander indifference is the classic diffusion of responsibility; Rajeev refused to become one more passer-by.
- The interview was a legitimate self-regarding good: a public job can itself become long service to many.
- The conflict is tragic, not comic: two goods, one body, one clock.
Reading the decision
- Duty ethics: a person in extremis is an end, not a means to Rajeev’s timetable; leaving him would have used his dying as a ladder to a post.
- Virtue: compassion and courage here are not soft feelings; they are the habits his maxim already named — service to humanity as service to God.
- Consequence: one life saved is a hard, visible good; a missed interview is a probable, not certain, loss of one career path, and another attempt may still exist.
- Justice: the injured person had no other helper; Rajeev was, in that minute, the only capable agent.
Qualifying comments, not a scold
- Idealism is praiseworthy when it answers a unique emergency; it would be rash if Rajeev had abandoned a child in his care or a duty already legally his in that same minute.
- A wise Samaritan also calls police, notes the spot, and does not play untrained surgeon; the stem says he saved a life, so the means fit the end.
- The State should not force this tragic choice: Good Samaritan protection and a chance to reschedule an interview are the institutional ethics that should stand behind Rajeev.
- Losing a job opportunity does not make the act foolish; it makes the Republic look at whether its selection process can recognise a documented rescue.
Verdict on the decision
- Rajeev’s choice was ethically justified and character-revealing.
- The loss is a cost to be mourned, not a proof that he chose wrong.
- The deeper lesson for a future civil servant is the same: when a life on the road and a personal clock collide, the life wins.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD L[Injured life] --> C[Clash] J[Interview clock] --> C C --> R[Rescue first] R --> V[Virtue and duty] J --> M[Mourn cost humanise exam]
Conclusion
Rajeev chose the stranger’s life over a personal interview. That was the right human action in an emergency. The bitterness of the lost chance is a reason to humanise recruitment, not a reason to call the rescue a mistake.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
What are the major principles of public life? Discuss with suitable examples.
Next question in the 2023 paper (Q16). View answer →
-
Should he have filmed the victim and gone to the interview?
A film does not stop bleeding. In a severe injury with no other helper, presence is the duty.
-
Does one rescue prove he will be a good officer?
It proves courage and empathy in one crisis. Office will still need impartiality and stamina; the decision is still right.
Same topic · past papers
UPPSC has asked this before
These previous-year questions sit on the same topic. Open one to practise the earlier ask.
More from this paper
Q1 · UPSC Mains 2023 · UPGS4 · 8 marks · Solution
What do you understand by Moral insight? How does it help in the moral situation of civil servants?
Civil Service aptitude and values
Moral insight is practical wisdom that reads a case, names values, and chooses a publicly justifiable act. Aristotle’s phronesis, Kant’s end-in-itself test, and Gandhi’s inner voice describe that sight. In service it ranks Constitution, statute, and the weakest claimant over oral pressure. The Second ARC wanted this ranking taught as a code of ethics, not left to accident. Flood lists, written dissent, and speaking orders are insight on the file.
Q2 · UPSC Mains 2023 · UPGS4 · 8 marks · Solution
Examine the relevance of the following in the context of civil service: a) Spirit of service b) Courage of firm conviction.
Civil Service aptitude and values
Spirit of service treats the chair as a means to the weakest citizen’s welfare, as in Gandhi’s talisman. The Second ARC and Sevottam make that spirit a delivery and courtesy duty, not a slogan. Courage of firm conviction holds a lawful reasoned view against pressure. Nolan integrity and dissent notings are that courage in rules. Flood camps, clean rolls, and written illegal-order requests show both on the ground.
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2023 · UPGS4 · 8 marks · Solution
“A child learns values by what he observes around him.” Discuss the role of family and society in the formation of values in light of this statement.
Civil Service aptitude and values
Children copy rewarded and repeated conduct more than lectures, as Bandura’s social learning says. The family is the first school of trust, fairness, gender, and truth about money. A closed home can plant caste pride and violence as normal. Society — peers, media, market, and the visible State — confirms or corrupts that map. Speed-money culture and queue-breaking teach cynicism; clean counters and shared meals teach dignity.