Q11 · UPSC Civil Services Mains 2025 · GS IV · 20 marks · 2 min read

← Q10 Q12 →

Case study. Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Program, MGNREGA was earlier known as National Rural Employment Scheme, NREGA. It is an Indian Social Welfare Program that aimed at fulfilling the 'Right to Work' provisions made in the Constitution. MGNREGA was launched in 2006 under Rural Employment Sector by the Ministry of Rural Development. Main objective of the program is to give legal guarantee of wage employment to the adult members of rural households who are willing to do unskilled manual labour work subject to a maximum of 100 days per year for every household. Every rural household has the right to register under the scheme, job card is issued to the registered, Job Card holder can seek employment; State Government shall pay 25% of minimum wage for the first 30 days as compensatory daily unemployment allowance to the families and of wage for remaining period of the year. MGNREGA work was undertaken by various Gram Panchayats. You have been appointed as an Administrator Incharge of the District. You have been given the responsibility of monitoring MGNREGA work undertaken by various Gram Panchayats. You are also given the authority to give technical sanctions to all MGNREGA works. In one of the Panchayats in your jurisdiction, you notice that your predecessor has mismanaged the Program in terms of: (i) Money not disbursed to actual job-seekers.(ii) Muster Rolls of the Labourers not properly maintained.(iii) Mismatch between the work done and payments made.(iv) Payments made to fictitious persons.(v) Job Cards were given without looking into the need of person.(vi) Mismanagement of funds and to the extent of siphoning of funds.(vii) Approved works that never existed. (a) What is your reaction to the above situation and how do you restore the proper functioning of MGNREGA Program in this regard?(b) What actions would you initiate, to solve the various issues listed above?(c) How would you deal with the above situation?

Topic: Ethics Case Studies. Syllabus: Case Studies on above issues. Same official PYQ from year-wise 2025 and Ethics Case Studies.

Revision summary

The first duty is to protect records, tell workers the truth, and stop further theft. Arrears must reach real job-seekers while ghosts, fake works and siphoned funds go to vigilance and the police. Job cards should be re-verified without stripping genuine households. The predecessor deserves due process, not a media hanging or a cover-up. Social audit, geotagging and a public dashboard keep the repair from rotting again.

Model answer

Copper italics in this answer — like this — are the key facts. Each one is unpacked in the Facts & figures rail.

Introduction

You take charge of a district and find that MGNREGA, a right to work, has been turned into a trough: money not paid to workers, ghost names, fake works, job cards as favours. Your predecessor built that trough. Your ethics are justice for labour, due process for the accused, and restoration of a law that is the rural poor’s floor.

Body

(a) Reaction and restoration

The right reaction is neither a press conference of rage nor a quiet burial. It is shock that becomes a plan. Freeze doubtful payments, protect records, inform the State rural-development secretary and the CVO/Vigilance, do not destroy the predecessor’s laptop, and tell workers the truth in a jan sunwai: the scheme is yours by law, this office failed you, we will rebuild. Restoration means fresh job-card verification, DBT that actually hits Aadhaar-seeded accounts of living workers, works that exist on the ground (geotag), and a helpdesk for those who were never paid.

(b) Actions on the listed issues

(i) Money not disbursed to job-seekers: trace PFMS, pay arrears with priority, fix the block officer. (ii) Muster rolls: reconstruct from attendance apps, photos, and village memory; end paper ghosts. (iii) Mismatch of work and pay: measurement books versus site; recover from implementing agency. (iv) Fictitious persons: FIR, Aadhaar de-duplication, social audit. (v) Job cards without need: re-verify households; a job card is a right of a rural household willing to work, not a caste gift, but it is also not a trader’s pad. (vi) Siphoning: criminal case, attachment, departmental inquiry. (vii) Non-existent works: site inspection, black-list, recovery. Technical sanction from you now must be earned by a visit, not a signature culture.

(c) How to deal with the whole situation

Use law, not vendetta. The predecessor gets a charge sheet and a chance to reply. Staff who cooperated get a path to turn approver. Do not punish genuine workers for a sarpanch’s crime by closing the panchayat’s entire shelf. Bring Ombudsperson, social audit unit, and geo-MGNREGA to stay. Publish a monthly dashboard. Your personal integrity is the message: this scheme is Gandhi’s employment as right, not a MLA’s cash. Aristotle’s justice is giving each their due — wages to the worker, punishment to the thief, and a functioning office to the village.

Flow diagram

Flow diagram

Conclusion

Name the fraud, freeze the leak, pay the real worker, and prosecute with due process. Restore MGNREGA as a right, not as a revenge play against a predecessor and not as a silence that protects him.

Quick related

Students also ask

Same topic · past papers

UPSC has asked this before

These previous-year questions sit on the same topic. Open one to practise the earlier ask.

  1. 2015 · Q11 · GS IV · 20 marks

    Case study. You are heading a district administration in a particular department. Your senior officer calls you from the State Headquarters and tells you that a plot in Rampur village is to have a building constructed on it for a school. A visit is scheduled during which he will visit the site along with the chief engineer and the senior architect. He wants you to check out all the papers relating to it and to ensure that the visit is properly arranged. You examine the file which relates to the period before you joined the department. The land was acquired from the local Panchayat at a nominal cost and the papers show that clearance certificates are available from the two of the three authorities who have to certify the site's suitability. There is no certification by the architect available on file. You decide to visit Rampur to ensure that all is in order as stated on file. When you visit Rampur, you find that the plot under reference is part of Thakurgarh Fort and that the walls, ramparts, etc., are running across it. The fort is well away from the main village, therefore a school here will be a serious inconvenience for the children. However, the area near the village has potential to expand into a larger residential area. The development charges on the existing plot, at the fort, will be very high and the question of heritage site has not been addressed. Moreover, the Sarpanch, at the time of acquisition of the land, was a relative of your predecessor. The whole transaction appears to have been done with some vested interest. (a) List the likely vested interests of the concerned parties. (b) Some of the options for action available to you are listed below. Discuss the merits and demerits of each of the options: You can await the visit of the superior officer and let him take a decision. You can seek his advice in writing or on phone. You can consult your predecessor/colleagues, etc., and then decide what to do. You can find out if any alternate plot can be got in exchange and then send a comprehensive written report. Can you suggest any other option with proper justification?

    View answer →

More from this topic

Q12 · UPSC Mains 2026 · GS IV · 20 marks · Solution

Case study. Ajit has been recently promoted as the Head of the Department of Weapon Sales (DWS) in the Ministry of Defence Production (MDP). His charter of duties includes international sales of weapons produced domestically by MDP. In two recent wars, MDP weapons have performed admirably, resulting in many countries showing interest in buying them, particularly long-range artillery and missiles. Country A and country B have asked for these weapons. However, production constraints restrict DWS to accept only one purchase order. Country A is a developing nation with a sound technology base. MDP is planning R&D collaboration with it for the next generation of weapons. It is not part of any security alliance and needs weapons for protection from a troublesome neighbour. It seeks a large acquisition on a long-term loan. Country B is also a developing nation. Military strength is its priority, with the military budget often ingressing into allocations for human resources and infrastructure development. It is in security alliance with a superpower who has a large military base there and periodically allots it financial grants. It is a member of an economic bloc with which the government is currently negotiating a free trade agreement. It is not a signatory of NPT but possesses smaller nuclear weapons and delivery systems. It supports some guerrilla forces abroad. It has sought a smaller acquisition and is prepared to make some advance payment. It is currently negotiating arms purchases from another nation too. Ajit discussed this case with his counterparts in the related departments. Therein, the significant economic benefits, employment generation and stronger diplomatic relations arising from this sale were highlighted. It was also emphasized that refusing the deal could result in country B purchasing weapons from some other supplier. Ajit was aware that in arms sales, due diligence at each stage was pivotal to ensure conformity to national policy and international treaties. (a) Discuss the options available to Ajit. Which option should he select and why? (b) How can Ajit balance nation's economic and strategic interests with ethical considerations?

Ethics Case Studies

This case study examines ethical dilemma in defense exports, balancing economic gains, strategic partnerships, and non-proliferation norms. Ajit must choose between Country A for R&D collaboration and self-reliance, or Country B for immediate financial gains and FTA leverage. The recommended course prioritizes long-term strategic security, technological synergy, and international humanitarian norms over short-term mercantile interests.

Q11 · UPSC Mains 2026 · GS IV · 20 marks · Solution

Case study. Rajapuram is a border district. Jhara and Biru, its two major communities are in continual conflict with each other. The social fabric is fractured and demands mending. Ethnic tensions between the two communities have erupted into violence resulting in a large number of deaths. The stated causes are conflicting land claims, uneven resource allocation and inadequate political representation in government bodies. Separate relief camps had to be created for the two communities. The situation is volatile and appears to be getting out of control. Rajan has been appointed the District Magistrate (DM) of Rajapuram and tasked to quickly get the situation under control. His immediate tasks include restoring administrative authority, reopening the highway and initiating peace talks. On taking over his appointment, Rajan realized that the inter-community rivalry had even seeped into the local administration and police. With functional neutrality being the immediate casualty, it had made both communities distrustful of the government. The neighbouring country could utilize the opportunity to spur insurgent activity and further aggravate the situation. Rajan favoured a controlled approach starting with opening the highway to restore food and medical supplies. He toyed with the idea of requisitioning CRPF units to help restore administrative control. (a) Discuss the ethical issues that need to be addressed in this case. (b) What are the options open to Rajan? Which option would ensure protection of his non-partisan image without compromising ethics?

Ethics Case Studies

This GS4 case study examines the ethical dilemmas faced by a District Magistrate in managing an ethnic conflict in a sensitive border district. It analyses the ethical issues involving neutrality, human life, security, and institutional trust. It evaluates options ranging from purely coercive measures to inclusive peace-building. The recommended approach balances administrative firmness with transparent, unbiased stakeholder engagement to uphold public service values.

Q10 · UPSC Mains 2026 · GS IV · 20 marks · Solution

Case study. Vikas is a government officer with over a decade of service in public administration. He has recently moved as the District Collector (DC) of Nainipura, a remote hilly district bordering a forest. Due to Nainipura's low levels of economic development, one of his major duties is to ensure proper functioning of the public distribution system (PDS) amongst the economically weaker sections (EWS). During his on-site visits, Vikas was apprised of a typical administrative challenge in operating the PDS. To prevent leakages, all distributors were required to carry out real-time biometric identification of the beneficiaries, whose fingerprints were tallied with identity card records. This was creating problems as the operating system sometimes rejected fingerprint matching in the cases of growing children, manual labourers and senior citizens. The problem was further compounded in periods of low WIFI connectivity. The distributors, in such cases, resorted to personal discretion when they could identify the recipient. Vikas had to address this problem on priority. Strictly adhering to 'government regulations' would ensure fiscal probity but would greatly trouble the proposed beneficiary, i.e., EWS. It may even impinge on their fundamental right to life as per Article 21 of the Constitution. Conversely, leaving the resolution solely to the discretion of the distributors could lead to misuse and leakages. (a) What are the options open to Vikas? How should he balance fiscal probity with empathy towards the designated beneficiaries? (b) Discuss the ethics of using technology as a gatekeeper for welfare schemes.

Ethics Case Studies

• Balance strict digital rules with human empathy to prevent vulnerable citizens from losing entitled rations due to technical failures. • Avoid extreme approaches like rigid enforcement (causing exclusion) or unchecked discretion (causing leakage and corruption). • Implement practical offline workarounds like manual registers, paper slips, or OTPs backed by periodic audits. • Treat procedural norms and technology as tools for human welfare rather than rigid ends in themselves. • Recognize that digital gatekeeping creates ethical tensions between fiscal efficiency and the exclusion of genuine beneficiaries. • Guard against technology violating human dignity by forcing vulnerable groups to repeatedly prove their identity against system errors. • Ensure administrative accountability so systemic technological failures are not unfairly blamed on the citizens.

PDF