You are heading a leading technical institute of the country. The institute is planning to convene an interview panel shortly under your chairmanship for selection of the post of professors. A few days before the interview, you get a call from the Personal Secretary (PS) of a senior government functionary seeking your intervention in favour of the selection of a close relative of the functionary for this post. The PS also informs you that he is aware of the long pending and urgent proposals of your institute for grant of funds for modernization, which are awaiting the functionary’s approval. He assures you that he would get these proposals cleared. (a) What are the options available to you? (b) Evaluate each of these options and choose the option which you would adopt, giving reasons.

Facts

As head of a technical institute chairing a selection panel for professors, I receive a call from the PS of a senior functionary seeking my favour for the functionary's relative — subtly linked to clearance of my institute's long-pending modernization funds. This is a veiled quid pro quo.

Stakeholders

• The institute and its students — they need the most meritorious professors.
• Other genuine candidates whose fair chance is threatened.
• Myself — integrity, impartiality and institutional duty.
• The functionary/PS and the relative candidate.

Ethical issues

• Merit and fairness in selection versus favouritism and nepotism.
• Integrity and independence versus institutional benefit (funds) offered as inducement.
• Abuse of authority and conflict of interest.

(a) Options available

• (i) Yield to the request to secure the funds.
• (ii) Bluntly refuse and confront the PS.
• (iii) Politely decline, affirm a merit-only process, and let the interview proceed transparently.

(b) Evaluation

• (i) Yield: secures funds but sacrifices merit, harms students, and amounts to corruption — unacceptable.
• (ii) Confront aggressively: principled but needlessly hostile and may jeopardise the institute's legitimate funds.
• (iii) Politely decline and ensure a transparent, merit-based interview: upholds integrity while keeping relations civil.

Recommended course of action

I will choose (iii). I will courteously make clear that selection will be strictly on merit before an impartial panel and that I cannot intervene. The candidate is free to compete like anyone else. Separately, I will pursue the modernization funds through proper official channels on their own merit — refusing to let the two be linked. To protect myself and the process, I will document the approach and, if pressure escalates, involve the full panel and record it. Institutional integrity and the students' interest must never be traded for funds.