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; ≥ 10 years and all minima → Refer to Director-Personnel; shortfall → Not to be selected; missing critical data → Information inadequate. Candidate: Sudha Ghosal — Born 20 October 1976; Deputy Manager, 4 years; PG HR 67%; Graduation 60%; Selection 45%. Determine the decision code.

Introduction / Context:
This item tests strict compliance with independent minima. Even strong academic credentials and an HR designation cannot offset a failure in the selection score when the rule demands ≥ 50%.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Minima: PG HR ≥ 60%; Graduation ≥ 55%; Selection ≥ 50%; Experience ≥ 5 years.
• Candidate: PG 67% (pass), Graduation 60% (pass), Selection 45% (fail), Experience 4 years (fail).

Concept / Approach:
Evaluate each requirement independently. A single failure is decisive. Here there are two deficits (selection and tenure), so the decision is clear.

Step-by-Step Solution:
PG HR: 67% → Pass.Graduation: 60% → Pass.Selection: 45% < 50% → Fail.Experience: 4 years < 5 years → Fail.Outcome → Not to be selected.

Verification / Alternative check:
If either deficit were cured, the other would still block eligibility. No senior referral applies without ≥ 10 years and all minima satisfied.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“To be selected” contradicts failures. “Information inadequate” is wrong because all figures are provided. “Refer to Director-Personnel” needs ≥ 10 years experience and no deficits.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming a senior title implies a waiver; assuming a high PG compensates for low selection marks; overlooking the tenure requirement.

Final Answer:
if the candidate is not to be selected