You have just been appointed as Additional Director General of Central Public Works Department. The Chief Architect of your division, who is to retire in six months, is passionately working on a very important project, the successful completion of which would earn him a lasting reputation for the rest of his life. A new lady architect, Seema, trained at Manchester School of Architecture, UK joined as Senior Architect in your division. During the briefing about the project, Seema made some suggestions which would not only add value to the project, but would also reduce completion time. This has made the Chief Architect insecure and he is constantly worried that all the credit will go to her. Subsequently, he adopted a passive and aggressive behaviour towards her and has become disrespectful to her. Seema felt it embarrassing as the Chief Architect left no chance of humiliating her. He would very often correct her in front of other colleagues and raise his voice while speaking to her. This continuous harassment has resulted in her losing confidence and self-esteem. She felt perpetually tensed, anxious and stressed. She appeared to be in awe of him since he has had a long tenure in the office and has vast experience in the area of her work. You are aware of her outstanding academic credentials and career record in her previous organisations. However, you fear that this harassment may result in compromising her much needed contribution in this important project and may adversely impact her emotional well-being. You have also come to know from her peers that she is contemplating tendering her resignation. (a) What are the ethical issues involved in the above case? (b) What are the options available to you in order to complete the project as well as to retain Seema in the organization? (c) What would be your response to Seema's predicament? What measures would you institute to prevent such occurrences from happening in your organization?

Key learnings from their answer

• ›In Q4 ("character revealed in private life") Ranga Manju stacked matched real cases on both sides, positives like IAS Sagayam, Lal Bahadur Shastri (wealth under Rs 500 at death), and the AC-shifted-to-the-maternity-ward officer, against negatives Asaram, Ram Rahim, and KPS Gill (citing the actual case Rupan Deol Bajaj v. KPS Gill) -> stock an Ethics answer with named, verifiable people and cite the case law by name; balanced positive-and-negative examples prove a claim far better than abstract assertion.
• ›Every answer ran a consistent template: a quotation/proverb hook opening (e.g., "Integrity is to do the right thing when no one is watching" for Q1, "Family is the first school" for Q2) into a framing line, then underlined sub-headers, closing on a one-line takeaway -> a repeatable intro-body-conclusion skeleton lets you write fast and uniformly under time pressure across 19 attempts without reinventing structure each time.
• ›It was a complete full-length attempt: all 13 Section-A items and all 6 Section-B case studies (Kerala landslides, AI task force, GoodLife Pharma/Revivol, CPWD harassment, etc.) attempted in order, within page limits -> finishing the whole paper within limits is itself a scoring strength; partial papers cap your ceiling regardless of per-answer quality.