Question map
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?
Explanation
The correct answer is Option 2.
Statement 1 is incorrect: The N. Gopalaswamy Iyengar Committee (1949) focused on the reorganization of the Government Machinery. It recommended the grouping of ministries and improvement in the efficiency of the public services, but it did not suggest designating a specific minister and secretary solely for administrative reforms. This specific suggestion was actually a hallmark of later reform discussions.
Statement 2 is correct: The first Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), headed by Morarji Desai (and later K. Hanumanthaiah) in 1966, recommended the creation of a separate Department of Personnel. Consequently, in 1970, the Department of Personnel was established within the Cabinet Secretariat and placed directly under the Prime Minister's charge. It was later merged into the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions, which remains under the Prime Minister's portfolio today.
Thus, only the second statement accurately reflects the historical and administrative evolution of the Union Government.
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Guest previewA classic 'Sitter + Bouncer' combo. Statement 2 is standard Laxmikanth (Public Services chapter), while Statement 1 is obscure administrative history (1949 Iyengar Report). The strategy is to bank on the standard fact (Stmt 2) and use elimination/logic to discard the hyper-specific, unlikely claim in Stmt 1.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: For the Union Government: did the N. Gopalaswamy Iyengar Committee recommend that a minister be designated solely to pursue and promote administrative reform?
- Statement 2: For the Union Government: did the N. Gopalaswamy Iyengar Committee recommend that a secretary be designated solely to pursue and promote administrative reform?
- Statement 3: For the Union Government: was the Department of Personnel constituted in 1970?
- Statement 4: For the Union Government: was the Department of Personnel constituted on the recommendation of the Administrative Reforms Commission (1966)?
- Statement 5: For the Union Government: was the Department of Personnel placed under the charge of the Prime Minister when it was constituted?
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.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This tab shows concrete study steps: what to underline in books, how to map current affairs, and how to prepare for similar questions.
Login with Google to unlock study guidance.
Discover the small, exam-centric ideas hidden in this question and where they appear in your books and notes.
Login with Google to unlock micro-concepts.
Access hidden traps, elimination shortcuts, and Mains connections that give you an edge on every question.
Login with Google to unlock The Vault.