Rakesh is a responsible district level officer, who enjoys the trust of his higher officials. Knowing his honesty, the government entrusted him with the responsibility of identifying the beneficiaries under a healthcare scheme meant for senior citizens. The criteria to be a beneficiary are the following : (a) 60 years of age or above. (b) Belonging to a reserved community. (c) Family income of less than ₹ 1 lakh per annum. (d) Post-treatment prognosis is likely to be high to make a positive difference to the quality of life of the beneficiary. One day, an old couple visited Rakesh's office with their application. They have been the residents of a village in his district since their birth. The old man is diagnosed with a rare condition that causes obstruction in the large intestine. As a consequence, he has severe abdominal pain frequently that prevents him from doing any physical labour. The couple have no children to support them. The expert surgeon whom they contacted is willing to do the surgery without charging any fee. However, the couple will have to bear the cost of incidental charges, such as medicines, hospitalization, etc., to the tune of ₹ 1 lakh. The couple fulfills all the criteria except criterion 'b'. However, any financial aid would certainly make a significant difference in their quality of life. How should Rakesh respond to the situation ?

Key learnings from their answer

• ›In the case studies (Q7 Kulkarni's scholarship-fund diversion, Q9 Neha's ex-gratia, Q10 dowry) he drew merit/demerit 'lens' schematics and took a clear reasoned stand under headings like 'Course of Action' and 'Ethical dilemmas' rather than hedging -> in ethics case studies, lay out the options visually with a stakeholder/merit-demerit weighing AND then commit to a decision, because examiners reward a defensible verdict over a balanced non-answer.