Introduction This case highlights a conflict of interest where personal gain is pitted against professional ethics and adherence to the rule of law.
The central ethical dilemma lies in choosing between upholding the integrity of the selection process versus succumbing to external pressure, exemplified by the recent controversies surrounding appointments in public institutions, where allegations of favoritism raise concerns about fairness and transparency; the deontological approach, emphasizing duty and moral obligation, offers a robust framework for navigating this situation.

Stakeholder Identification Institute Head (You), Interview Panel, Candidates, Government Functionary, Personal Secretary, Institute Staff & Students, Funding Agencies.

12a) Options Available:

1. Comply with the request: Recommend and ensure the selection of the relative, prioritizing the institute's modernization funds.
2. Refuse directly: Reject the request outright, upholding the fairness of the selection process.
3. Refuse indirectly: Express inability to fulfill the request citing established procedures and norms of the institute.
4. Report the incident: Inform higher authorities or an anti-corruption body about the undue influence and pressure.
5. Defer the decision: Postpone the interview process, giving time to address the situation without immediate confrontation.
6. Recuse yourself: Step down as chairman of the interview panel to avoid any conflict of interest.

12b) Evaluation and Chosen Option:

1. Complying would be a violation of professional ethics, fiduciary duty, and the principles of justice and fairness. It would establish a wrong precedent and undermine the institute's credibility. This utilitarian approach, prioritizing institutional gain over individual merit, is ethically unsound.

2. Direct refusal, while morally upright, could strain relations with the government functionary, potentially jeopardizing the institute's funding prospects. This approach, though rooted in deontological principles, might have negative consequences.

3. Indirect refusal is a more tactful approach that upholds professional ethics without directly antagonizing the functionary. It maintains respect for the chain of command while upholding the rule of law.

4. Reporting the incident demonstrates a strong commitment to integrity and transparency. It aligns with the deontological approach and strengthens the rule of law, but may have significant repercussions.

5. Deferring the decision provides time to consult with relevant authorities and seek advice on handling the situation ethically. This option allows for a more considered response but may be perceived as a delaying tactic.

6. Recusing yourself demonstrates a high level of integrity and avoids any perception of bias or conflict of interest. This approach prioritizes virtue ethics and ensures fairness and transparency in the selection process.

Chosen Option: Recusing yourself, followed by indirectly refusing the PS’s request, is the most ethically sound approach. This upholds professional ethics, avoids a direct confrontation, and maintains the integrity of the selection process. Simultaneously, reporting the incident to the appropriate vigilance authorities can ensure transparency and accountability, preventing similar incidents in the future. This approach balances the deontological duty to act ethically with the potential utilitarian consequences of jeopardizing the institute's funding.

Conclusion This case highlights the ethical dilemma of balancing institutional needs with moral righteousness. The 2G spectrum allocation scam serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of prioritizing personal gain over public welfare. By choosing to recuse and indirectly refuse, while reporting the incident, the institute head upholds the principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability. Initiatives like the Central Vigilance Commission and the Whistleblower Protection Act provide avenues for addressing such ethical violations. Moving forward, establishing clear guidelines and protocols for handling external pressures in selection processes can prevent similar dilemmas and foster a culture of integrity in academic institutions.