My first take: his GAI is clearly the more appropriate measure, given the marked relative weakness in PSI (BTW, likely also resulting in an underestimate of the PRI, due to his significant relative weakness in block design, which is a timed motor task, and may be affected by the same factors that preferentially lower the PSI).
I can't speak to your selection committee, but when I was a member of the selection committee at a large district in the past, we used a variety of criteria, in addition to individually-administered test data, none of which were necessarily as cut and dried as you might think. How much they focus on one score over another will probably depend on the level of psychometric expertise of the committee, and the portfolios of the other candidates. If there is space for you to submit work samples or any supplementary evidence, I would suggest you do so, to support the GAI as being the measure most consistent with his actual level of performance.
