Answer:

Introduction:

The case study presents a situation where the head of a technical institute is faced with a request to favor the selection of a close relative for a professorial position.

Body:

• a) Options available:
• Grant favor to the close relative:
  • Pros: It may result in personal benefits, such as the approval of pending proposals for funds.
  • Cons: It compromises the integrity of the selection process, undermines meritocracy, and raises ethical concerns. It can damage the reputation of the institute and create a perception of favoritism and nepotism.
• Reject the request and conduct the selection process impartially:
  • Pros: Upholds the principles of fairness, transparency, and meritocracy. Ensures that candidates are selected based on their qualifications and abilities. Maintains the credibility and reputation of the technical institute.
  • Cons: It may lead to disappointment or potential repercussions from the government functionary or their associates who expect preferential treatment. There might be delays in getting the pending proposals approved.
• Inform higher authorities or anti-corruption department:
  • Pros: Demonstrates a commitment to ethical conduct, transparency, and accountability. Protects the integrity of the selection process and the reputation of the institute. Raises awareness about the unethical request and helps prevent future incidents.
  • Cons: It could create tensions or conflicts with the government functionary or their office. It may involve additional investigations or procedures, causing delays in the selection process or approval of pending proposals.

Preferred option:

Option 2 – Reject the request and conduct the selection process impartially.

• This option upholds the principles of fairness, meritocracy, and integrity.
• It avoids nepotism and ensures that candidates are selected based on their qualifications and abilities rather than personal connections.
• It also maintains the reputation and credibility of the technical institute.

Reasons for choosing option 2:

• Upholding meritocracy: Selecting candidates based on their qualifications and capabilities ensures a high standard of education and research at the institute.
• Maintaining integrity: Rejecting the request preserves the ethical standards of the institution and builds trust among stakeholders.
• Avoiding potential consequences: Granting the request could lead to negative repercussions, such as a compromised reputation, loss of trust, and legal implications.
• By choosing option 2, the institute demonstrates its commitment to fairness, transparency, and academic excellence.

Conclusion:

It is essential to maintain a high standard of ethical conduct and avoid succumbing to external pressures that compromise the integrity of the selection process. By selecting candidates based on merit, the institute can continue to uphold its academic standards and ensure the best candidates are chosen for the professorship positions.