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: Ketan Desai — Personnel Dept, 5 years; PG Diploma (Personnel Mgt) 64%; Graduation 52%; Selection 44%; Born 5 January 1976. Determine the decision code.

Introduction / Context:
This case features multiple deficits. When independent minima govern, any single deficit is disqualifying; multiple deficits only reinforce the decision. The exercise checks careful reading and threshold comparison.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Minima: PG HR ≥ 60%; Graduation ≥ 55%; Selection ≥ 50%; Experience ≥ 5 years.
• Candidate: Graduation 52% (fail); Selection 44% (fail); PG 64% (pass); Experience 5 years (meets minimum).

Concept / Approach:
Apply the rule “all minima must be satisfied.” Since two criteria are below cutoff, the outcome must be negative regardless of the strong PG mark or adequate tenure.

Step-by-Step Solution:
PG HR: 64% → Pass.Graduation: 52% < 55% → Fail.Selection: 44% < 50% → Fail.Experience: 5 years ≥ 5 years → Pass, but prior fails control.Decision → Not to be selected.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if the experience slightly exceeded 5 years, the education/selection shortfalls remain decisive in a minima-based policy.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“To be selected” conflicts with two fails. “Information inadequate” is incorrect because all inputs are present. “Refer to Director-Personnel” is intended for senior approvals, not remedial consideration for sub-minimum cases.

Common Pitfalls:
Letting strong PG overshadow weak graduation marks; assuming tenure compensates for a very low selection score.

Final Answer:
if the candidate is not to be selected