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.

Question

Solve this multiple-choice question and choose the correct option.

Accepted Answer

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

More Questions from Statement and Argument

Discussion & Comments