With reference to the Union Government, consider the following statements : 1. N. Gopalaswamy Iyengar Committee suggested that a minister and a secretary be designated solely for pursuing the subject of administrative reform and promoting it. 2. In 1970, the Department of Personnel was constituted on the recommendation of the Administrative Reforms Commission, 1966, and this was placed under the Prime Minister's charge. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Explicitly records that the N. Gopalaswamy Iyengar Committee suggested a minister and a secretary be designated solely to pursue and promote administrative reform (presented as a recommendation in a summary question).

A student could treat this as an example of committees recommending specific officer-level designations and then check primary ARC/N. Gopalaswamy Iyengar Committee reports or government orders to verify wording and adoption.

Shows precedent that the First Administrative Reforms Commission made concrete institutional recommendations (e.g., creation of Lokpal/Lokayukta) — indicating commissions often recommend specific new posts/bodies.

Use this pattern to infer that a committee recommending a designated minister/secretary is consistent with how reform bodies operate; verify by consulting the specific committee report or government response.

Demonstrates that the Union executive creates non-statutory bodies (Planning Commission) by Cabinet resolution, implying recommended administrative arrangements (like designating ministers) can be effected administratively rather than only by statute.

A student could combine this with the committee recommendation to ask whether the recommendation required legislation or could be implemented by executive order, then look up subsequent executive actions.

Describes the Second Administrative Reforms Commission recommending organisational changes (e.g., on Groups of Ministers), showing reform commissions commonly advise on ministerial/organisational allocations.

Apply this pattern to reason that a committee recommending a minister dedicated to reform fits a wider genre of such recommendations; then verify specifics in the Iyengar Committee record or government adoption history.

States that N. Gopalaswamy Iyengar Committee suggested that a minister and a secretary be designated solely for pursuing and promoting administrative reform (explicit example of such a recommendation).

A student could note this as a direct example to check against other sources (committee reports, government orders) or use it to frame a search for official adoption or related notifications.

Shows the First Administrative Reforms Commission recommended creation of specific institutional posts (Lokpal, Lokayukta) for grievance redressal—demonstrates precedent for recommending designated offices to pursue reform/oversight.

Use the precedent that reform bodies recommend creating dedicated offices to infer plausibility that other committees (like Iyengar) might recommend designated posts, then seek corroborating committee text or government action.

Explains that the Union can set up extra-constitutional/non-statutory bodies (Planning Commission) by Cabinet resolution—shows a mechanism by which recommendations for designated posts/offices could be implemented without legislation.

One could extend this rule to seek cabinet resolutions or administrative orders that might have created a secretary-level post to pursue administrative reform following committee recommendations.

Identifies Gopalaswamy Iyengar among notable committee members (photo caption), corroborating existence/recognition of the individual/committee in official discourse.

Use this as a cue to locate the committee's report or official summaries (knowing the committee and person helps target archival searches for the exact recommendation).

States that the Department of Personnel and Training is the central personnel agency in India, establishing that such a department exists and is the focal body for personnel matters.

A student could combine this with historical timelines of central administrative reforms to check when the central personnel agency was formally created or renamed.

Refers to the Ministry/Ministry of Personnel as the central personnel agency, showing institutional control and policy role over Central Services.

Use this to look up when the Ministry/Department that functions as the central personnel agency assumed that role (e.g., formation/renaming dates) in government records or timelines.

Mentions a 1990 Office Memorandum signed by a Joint Secretary in the Department of Personnel and Training, confirming the department’s active existence by 1990.

A student could infer the department pre-dated 1990 and then search backward (archives, government orders) to narrow the establishment date toward 1970.

Explains that the Union set up important non-statutory bodies (e.g., Planning Commission) by Cabinet resolution rather than legislation, illustrating a pattern of how central bodies can be constituted.

Apply this pattern to the Department of Personnel: check whether its constitution could plausibly have followed a recommendation (e.g., of a commission) and been established by executive action around 1970.

Describes the advisory role of Union bodies like the UPSC and how the government may accept or depart from recommendations, indicating that commissions’ recommendations can lead to departmental changes.

A student could trace recommendations from bodies such as the Administrative Reforms Commission (mentioned elsewhere) to see if those recommendations were implemented around 1970 to create the department.