Conflict of interest in the public sector arises when (a) official duties, (b) public interest, and (c) personal interest are taking priority one above the other. How can this conflict in administration be resolved? Describe with an example.

A conflict of interest arises in the public sector when an official's personal interest interferes, or appears to interfere, with the impartial discharge of official duties, which in turn must serve the larger public interest. The three — official duty, public interest and personal interest — can pull in different directions, and the ethical task is to order them correctly.

The principle of prioritisation

The settled hierarchy is clear: public interest ranks highest, official duty is its instrument, and personal interest must yield. A public office is a public trust; where personal interest cannot be reconciled with duty, it must be subordinated or the official must step aside.

Mechanisms to resolve the conflict

• Disclosure: declaration of assets, interests and pecuniary connections.
• Recusal: withdrawing from any decision where one has a personal stake.
• Institutional safeguards: codes of conduct, cooling-off periods before post-retirement employment, blind trusts, and independent oversight, as urged by the Second ARC report 'Ethics in Governance'.
• Transparency: open, recorded decision-making that can withstand public scrutiny.

Example

Suppose an officer is on a tender committee and a firm owned by a close relative is among the bidders. Official duty is to evaluate fairly; public interest requires the best value for public money; personal interest tempts favour. The ethical resolution is immediate disclosure of the relationship and recusal from the evaluation, allowing an unconflicted colleague to decide. By placing public interest first and removing herself, the officer preserves both integrity and public confidence — the essence of resolving conflict of interest in administration.