Statement–Argument (Hire-and-Fire Policy in Public Sector Undertakings): Statement: Should public sector undertakings (PSUs) be allowed to adopt a hire-and-fire policy? Arguments: I) Yes, it helps remove non-performers and reward high performers appropriately. II) No, it gives an unjust handle to management and risks indiscriminate misuse. III) Yes, it will raise efficiency and can turn PSUs into profitable, responsive organisations. Choose the strongest evaluation.

Introduction / Context:
Personnel flexibility shapes organisational performance. In PSUs, balancing accountability and employee protections is critical. A hire-and-fire regime aims to align incentives and productivity, but it also raises concerns about fairness and potential abuse.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Performance heterogeneity exists; rigid tenure can dilute accountability.
• Misuse risks can be mitigated by due process, transparent KPIs, and appeal mechanisms.
• Public objectives (service quality, fiscal prudence) require efficient human-capital management.

Concept / Approach:
Strong arguments should address systemic goals (efficiency, service delivery) or substantial systemic risks that cannot be reasonably mitigated. Weak arguments rely on absolute fears or ignore available safeguards.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assess I: Ties policy directly to improved selection/retention and removal of chronic underperformance—decision-relevant and strong.Assess II: Highlights a real risk but treats misuse as unavoidable; governance tools (independent review, labour law, unions, tribunals) provide guardrails—thus comparatively weaker.Assess III: Connects flexibility to efficiency and financial health—organisation-level outcomes—strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Global best practices pair flexibility with procedural fairness: performance improvement plans, documented metrics, and transparent separation policies. This supports I and III while tempering II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Including II elevates a manageable risk to a conclusive veto; excluding I/III ignores core performance objectives; “None” disregards evident efficiency links.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming any discretion equates to abuse; overlooking oversight and appeal structures.

Final Answer:
I and III are strong.