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 with all minima met; clear shortfall → Not to be selected; missing critical data → Information inadequate. Candidate: Asha Dhar — Graduation 80%; PG (Personnel Management) 62%; Selection 48%; Personnel Dept 7 years; Born 8 June 1974. Determine the decision code.

Introduction / Context:
High academic scores and adequate tenure cannot offset a failure on a required selection cutoff when the policy uses independent minima. This question emphasizes that selection performance is a gate.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Minima: PG HR ≥ 60%; Graduation ≥ 55%; Selection ≥ 50%; Experience ≥ 5 years.
• Candidate: Graduation 80% (pass); PG 62% (pass); Experience 7 years (pass); Selection 48% (fail).

Concept / Approach:
Evaluate each requirement independently; a fail on selection score results in immediate ineligibility absent a defined waiver.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Graduation: 80% → Pass.PG HR: 62% → Pass.Experience: 7 years → Pass.Selection: 48% < 50% → Fail.Outcome → Not to be selected.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if the interview component were strong, the stated composite threshold is 50%. Without a policy clause for conditional referrals at 48–49%, the only consistent result is rejection.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“To be selected” ignores the selection fail. “Information inadequate” does not apply; all numbers are given. “Refer to Director-Personnel” is for senior approvals, not sub-threshold remediation.

Common Pitfalls:
Believing exceptional academics can substitute for selection performance; they cannot unless explicitly written.

Final Answer:
if the candidate is not to be selected