Civil service postings — should administrative officers be transferred every 1–2 years? Statement: Should administrative officers be transferred after one or two years? Arguments: I. Yes — they may become too friendly with locals and be manipulated. II. No — policies and schemes need time to take shape; frequent transfers disrupt them. III. No — it creates administrative hassles and inconvenience to officers.
Verbal Reasoning
Statement and Argument
Difficulty: Easy
Choose an option
-
AOnly II is strong
-
BOnly I and II are strong
-
COnly II and III are strong
-
DOnly I and III are strong
-
EAll are strong
Answer
Correct Answer: Only I and II are strong
Explanation
Introduction / Context:Transfers affect governance continuity and integrity. We assess which reasons strongly support or oppose frequent transfers of officers at 1–2 year intervals.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- I raises a corruption/influence risk from prolonged local embeddedness.
- II warns that program execution needs continuity.
- III cites inconvenience and administrative hassle.
Concept / Approach:
- Integrity controls and implementation continuity are both core public-administration concerns.
- Personal inconvenience, while real, is not decisive compared with service delivery and integrity.
Step-by-Step Solution:
I is strong: Extended familiarity can create capture risks; periodic rotation can mitigate undue influence.II is strong: Policies require gestation; frequent moves can derail accountability and outcomes.III is weak: Hassle to officers is secondary when balanced against governance objectives; it does not by itself justify policy.Verification / Alternative check:
Many systems combine rotation with minimum tenure norms (e.g., 2–3 years) to balance I and II.Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II or II&III / I&III / All: These either omit I’s integrity rationale or overvalue III’s convenience point.Common Pitfalls:
Ignoring program lifecycle needs; treating integrity and continuity as mutually exclusive.Final Answer:
Only I and II are strong