DAW 11th February 2026, Mains Answer Writting 2027
Question
As a district-level administrative officer overseeing ICDS implementation, you are confronted with this situation.
(a) Identify the ethical issues involved in the case.
(b) Examine the conflict between social prejudices and constitutional values in this scenario.
(c) What options are available to you to address the situation? Evaluate the ethical merits and demerits of each.
(d) What course of action would you adopt? Justify your answer with reference to values such as equity, justice, empathy, and constitutional morality.
Model Answer
Approach:
Introduction (2–3 lines)
Briefly state the context, public service involved, and the ethical dilemma.
Highlight the clash between social practices and constitutional/ethical values.
Mention your role as a public administrator responsible for justice and welfare.
Body
Identify Stakeholders
List all direct and indirect stakeholders.
Clearly mention their stakes (rights, dignity, welfare, responsibility).
Ethical Issues Involved
Identify core ethical concerns (e.g., discrimination, injustice, rights violation).
Use ethical terms like dignity, equity, vulnerability, moral duty, public interest.
Conflict Analysis
Bring out the conflict between:
Social morality vs Constitutional morality
Tradition vs Rule of law
Cite relevant constitutional values/articles where appropriate.
Options Available
Present 3–4 realistic administrative options.
For each option:
Mention ethical merits
Mention ethical demerits
Avoid extremes; show balanced judgment.
Course of Action (Best Option)
Choose the most ethical and practical option.
Justify using values like justice, empathy, accountability, constitutional morality.
Structure actions as:
Immediate
Medium-term
Long-term
Conclusion
End with a value-based takeaway.
Reinforce the idea that a civil servant is a moral agent of the Constitution, not a negotiator of injustice.
INTRODUCTION
The given case from a rural district (Odisha) highlights the persistence of caste-based discrimination in the delivery of public welfare services. An anganwadi centre under the ICDS scheme has remained non-functional for nearly three months after the appointment of a Dalit woman as helper-cum-cook, leading villagers to boycott the centre. As a result, children, pregnant women, and lactating mothers are being denied essential nutrition and care. As a district-level administrative officer, the situation poses a serious ethical dilemma involving social prejudice, constitutional values, children’s rights, and administrative responsibility.
Stakeholders Involved
Dalit anganwadi helper-cum-cook: Stake in dignity, livelihood, equality, and freedom from discrimination.
Children: Stake in nutrition, health, education, early childhood development, and survival.
Parents and villagers: Influenced by entrenched caste norms and social conditioning.
Village committee and Gram Panchayat: Informal and formal local power structures shaping collective behaviour.
Anganwadi worker, CDPO, ICDS machinery: Responsible for programme implementation and monitoring.
District administration: Constitutional authority to uphold law, justice, and social equity.
The State and Constitution: Custodians of equality, dignity, and social justice.
(a) Ethical Issues Involved
Caste-based discrimination and untouchability: Refusal to consume food cooked by a Dalit worker reflects entrenched caste prejudice.
Violation of children’s rights: Innocent children suffer due to denial of nutrition and early care.
Denial of dignity and livelihood: Social boycott undermines the worker’s dignity and right to work.
Collective punishment: Entire community, including Dalit households, is deprived of services.
Failure of public service delivery: ICDS objectives are defeated due to social resistance.
Ethical dilemma of the administrator: Balancing social harmony versus enforcement of constitutional norms.
(b) Conflict Between Social Prejudices and Constitutional Values
Core Conflict:
This case study represents a clash between social morality (tradition-driven prejudice) and constitutional morality (justice, equality, fraternity).
Social Prejudice
Based on notions of caste hierarchy, purity, and exclusion.
Reinforced through collective boycott and social pressure.
Constitutional Values Violated
Article 14: Equality before law denied in access to public services.
Article 15: Prohibition of caste-based discrimination violated.
Article 17: Practice amounts to untouchability in substance.
Article 21: Right to life with dignity of children and worker compromised.
(c) Options Available and Ethical Evaluation
Option 1: Transfer the Dalit worker to another anganwadi centre
Ethical Merits
Enables immediate resumption of anganwadi services.
Minimises short-term disruption to nutrition delivery.
Ethical Demerits
Legitimises caste-based discrimination by rewarding social prejudice.
Creates a dangerous precedent where public appointments become contingent on caste acceptance, thereby weakening the authority of the State and rule of law.
Encourages future collective coercion by dominant social groups.
Option 2: Rely exclusively on persuasion and dialogue with villagers
Ethical Merits
Non-coercive and grounded in empathy and reconciliation.
Acknowledges social sensitivities and avoids immediate confrontation.
May help in gradual attitudinal change.
Ethical Demerits
Delays justice and prolongs deprivation of nutrition and care for children and women.
Risks normalising unconstitutional conduct under the guise of social harmony.
Option 3: Initiate strict punitive action against villagers
Ethical Merits
Clearly asserts constitutional supremacy and rule of law.
Sends a strong deterrent message against caste discrimination and untouchability.
Reaffirms the State’s role as a neutral enforcer of rights, not an arbiter of social hierarchies.
Ethical Demerits
May trigger social backlash and resistance if perceived as authoritarian.
Without parallel sensitisation, punishment alone may breed resentment rather than reform.
Risks reducing ethical governance to mere legal compliance.
Option 4: Adopt a balanced approach combining enforcement with reform (Most Ethical)
Ethical Merits
Upholds constitutional morality while remaining socially responsive.
Protects the dignity and rights of the anganwadi worker, children, and women.
Addresses both the symptom (service denial) and the root cause (caste prejudice).
Integrates justice with empathy, deterrence with dialogue, and authority with accountability.
Enables sustainable behavioural change rather than temporary compliance.
Ethical Demerits
Demands sustained administrative commitment, coordination, and moral courage.
Requires continuous engagement and monitoring to prevent relapse.
(d) Course of Action I Would Adopt
I would adopt Option 4, guided by constitutional morality, justice, equity, empathy, and accountability.
Immediate Measures
Ensure uninterrupted nutrition to children through alternative arrangements (dry rations, doorstep delivery).
Protect the posting and dignity of the anganwadi helper; no transfer under social pressure.
Record and act upon obstruction under relevant legal provisions.
Medium-Term Measures
Initiate legal action against those preventing access to public services.
Conduct community sensitisation involving PRI leaders, SHGs, teachers, and social workers.
Publicly reiterate constitutional provisions and Supreme Court directions favouring SC/ST cooks in welfare schemes.
Long-Term Measures
Institutionalise caste-sensitisation programmes at the village level.
Strengthen Gram Sabha accountability in social welfare delivery.
Monitor ICDS centres to prevent recurrence of exclusionary practices.
Ethical Justification
Equity: Prioritises children and marginalised workers.
Justice: Rejects caste discrimination in public institutions.
Empathy: Recognises ignorance while refusing injustice.
Constitutional morality: Reaffirms the supremacy of the Constitution over social prejudice.
Conclusion:
In public institutions, constitutional morality must override social prejudice. As Dr. B.R. Ambedkar warned, political democracy cannot survive without social democracy rooted in equality and fraternity. This case also demonstrates that welfare delivery is not value-neutral; it is deeply ethical. Yielding to caste prejudice would hollow out constitutional guarantees and legitimise injustice. An ethical administrator must act as a moral agent of the Constitution, ensuring that dignity, equality, and justice are not negotiable. Protecting a Dalit woman’s right to work and a child’s right to nutrition is not an administrative choice, it is a constitutional obligation and moral imperative.