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; if experience ≥ 10 years and all other criteria met, route to Director-Personnel for senior-grade approval; any clear shortfall → Not to be selected; missing critical data → Information inadequate. Candidate: Arun Vohra — Personnel Dept, 11 years; PG (Personnel Management) 65%; Graduation 55%; Selection 50%; Born 12 August 1972. Determine the decision code.

Introduction / Context:
Some HR policies differentiate senior cases for approval routing even when all basic thresholds are satisfied. This tests your ability to detect when a candidate should be escalated for senior review rather than directly selected.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Core minima: PG (HR) ≥ 60%; Graduation ≥ 55%; Selection ≥ 50%; Experience ≥ 5 years.
• Escalation rule (stated above for this self-contained item): if experience ≥ 10 years and all minima are met, refer to Director-Personnel for senior-grade approval rather than issuing a direct selection verdict.
• Arun Vohra: 11 years experience; PG 65%; Graduation 55%; Selection 50%.

Concept / Approach:
First validate all minima. If they pass, check the seniority escalation condition. If satisfied, the correct label is the referral option, not “to be selected.”

Step-by-Step Solution:
PG HR: 65% ≥ 60% → Pass.Graduation: 55% ≥ 55% → Pass.Selection: 50% ≥ 50% → Pass.Experience: 11 years ≥ 10 years → Triggers senior referral route.Decision: Refer to Director-Personnel.

Verification / Alternative check:
No shortfalls exist; therefore “not to be selected” is incorrect. The only nuance is routing due to senior tenure, which the policy explicitly defines here for solvability.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“To be selected” skips the specified escalation path; “information inadequate” is false (data complete); “not to be selected” contradicts the passes on all thresholds.

Common Pitfalls:
Ignoring escalation cues when all minima pass; failing to recognize that process routing, not eligibility failure, is being tested.

Final Answer:
if the case is to be referred to the Director-Personnel