Eligibility Decision — HR/Personnel Profile (self-contained policy + candidate) Policy (HR/Personnel roles): • PG degree/diploma in HR/Personnel with ≥ 60%. • Graduation with ≥ 55%. • Selection process score ≥ 50%. • Relevant HR/Personnel experience ≥ 5 years. • All met → Select; senior referral only if experience ≥ 10 years and all minima met; clear shortfall → Not to be selected; missing critical data → Information inadequate. Candidate: Anant Joshi — Personnel Department, 6 years; PG (Personnel Management) 60%; Graduation 55%; Selection 55%; Born 7 November 1977. Determine the decision code.

Introduction / Context:
This case is a straightforward application of minima without any escalation trigger. It checks whether you can recognize a fully qualified profile and choose the direct selection label.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Thresholds: PG HR ≥ 60%; Graduation ≥ 55%; Selection ≥ 50%; Experience ≥ 5 years.
• Referral applies only when experience ≥ 10 years with all minima met (not the case here).
• All data fields are present and clear.

Concept / Approach:
Systematically validate each criterion; if all pass and no senior referral rule applies, select.

Step-by-Step Solution:
PG HR: 60% → meets cutoff (≥ 60%).Graduation: 55% → meets cutoff.Selection: 55% → meets cutoff.Experience: 6 years → meets ≥ 5 years.No senior-referral condition (experience < 10 years). → Decision = Select.

Verification / Alternative check:
All thresholds are satisfied without edge ambiguity. Therefore, any answer other than “to be selected” would contradict the policy.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Not to be selected” requires a shortfall (none). “Information inadequate” would require missing/uncertain data (none). “Refer to Director-Personnel” requires ≥ 10 years experience (not met).

Common Pitfalls:
Overlooking the equality-at-cutoff rule; incorrectly invoking referral with only 6 years of experience.

Final Answer:
if the candidate is to be selected