You are aspiring to become an IAS officer and you have cleared various stages and now you have been selected for the personal interview. On the day of the interview, on the way to the venue you saw an accident where a mother and child who happen to be your relatives were badly injured. They needed immediate help. What would you have done in such a situation? Justify your action.

On the way to my long-awaited IAS interview I come upon an accident in which a mother and child — my own relatives — lie badly injured and need immediate help. The situation pits a once-in-a-lifetime career opportunity against the immediate duty to save human life.

Stakeholders

• The injured mother and child — their lives and health are at stake.
• Myself — my career aspiration and my moral character.
• Bystanders who could assist; the UPSC and the fairness of its process.

Ethical issues

• The value of human life and the duty of compassion versus personal ambition and self-interest.
• Presence of mind and emotional intelligence under acute stress.
• The moral test of whether I would embody, in crisis, the very qualities the service demands.

Options

• Ignore them and reach the interview on time. Merit: secures my career. Demerit: a grave moral failure — abandoning injured relatives, and indeed any human being, for personal gain; it would betray the compassion expected of a civil servant.
• Personally rush them to hospital, missing or delaying the interview. Merit: directly saves lives and honours duty. Demerit: possible loss of the opportunity, though this is the lesser loss.
• Act with presence of mind: immediately call emergency services (108) and the police, mobilise bystanders to move the injured safely, inform other family members, ensure the victims reach hospital, and simultaneously contact the UPSC to explain and request accommodation. Merit: maximises the chance of both saving lives and salvaging the interview; demonstrates leadership and composure.

Justified course of action

I would unhesitatingly prioritise saving the lives — no examination outweighs a human life — while acting intelligently to do so: securing prompt medical help, marshalling bystanders, and informing the UPSC of the genuine emergency in the hope of a rescheduled or delayed interview. The fact that the victims are my relatives strengthens, but is not the source of, the duty; I would act the same for any stranger, because the obligation to render aid flows from their being human beings in peril, not merely from kinship. Even if the opportunity is ultimately lost, the decision is right, and I would carry no regret; the compassion, courage and presence of mind the choice displays are precisely the qualities that make one fit to serve the public. A civil servant who would step over the injured to reach an interview would be poorly suited to a career whose first premise is service to people in distress.