Instructions

Read the following scenario and answer the THREE questions that follow.

Fine Elements Inc. is an Indian organization with a substantial presence in South and East India. The company is recruiting talent to expand in North and West India. The organization’s head of talent acquisition, Premnarayan, entrusts the interview process, a key stage in the recruitment process, to his line managers who take the responsibility of selecting candidates. Premnarayan, however, lays down stringent rules that the line managers need to follow to achieve consistent outcomes.

Joginder Mahato, a line manager, has been interviewing candidates. During the interview, Joginder realizes that one of the candidates, Animisha, called for the interview, does not satisfy the necessary condition of five years experience. Upon enquiring, he finds out that this happened due to an oversight by an inexperienced secretary who was asked to prepare the shortlist for the interview. However, as Animisha is present for the interview, he decides to conduct her interview. Joginder finds Animisha’s candidature to be the best among the candidates he has interviewed so far.

Question 35

Joginder wants to recommend Animisha for selection despite her not fulfilling the experience criterion.

Which of the following reasons, IF TRUE, will BEST convince Joginder to recommend Animisha?

Solution

Joginder has found Animisha to be the best candidate among those he has interviewed so far, but she does not meet the minimum experience requirement. Since Premnarayan has laid down stringent rules to ensure consistency in the selection process, Joginder needs a convincing reason to recommend a candidate who does not satisfy the prescribed eligibility criteria. Option D is the best answer because Joginder himself was selected for his current role despite failing to meet several eligibility criteria. His own experience could lead him to recognise that a candidate who falls short of formal requirements may still be suitable for the role. This precedent may therefore convince him to recommend Animisha based on her overall suitability rather than reject her solely because she lacks the stipulated experience.

Option A explains that the experience requirement was increased only recently, but this does not establish that the new criterion should be disregarded. Option B indicates that Animisha has prior exposure to the company through an internship, but this alone does not demonstrate that she can compensate for her lack of experience. Option C suggests that Animisha may soon join a competitor, creating urgency, but the possibility of losing her does not by itself justify an exception to the selection rules. Option E highlights the difficulty of finding good talent for the role, which provides a business reason to consider Animisha; however, it does not directly address why Joginder should be willing to depart from the eligibility criteria. In contrast, Option D offers a personal precedent that could influence Joginder's judgement, making it the strongest choice among the given options.

Was this solution helpful?