IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. No. 458 of 2011. Decided on : 21st October, 2011. _____________________________________________________ Ramesh Chand. …Petitioner. -Versus- Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Board and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate vice Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. For respondent No. 1. : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For respondent No. 2. : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): In sequel to order dated 14th October, 2011, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1-Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Board has placed on record the opinion of three experts drawn from Punjab University. According to the joint opinion of these experts, the answer to question No. 156 is “D”. The opinion given by the experts is reproduced as under: “Steel is used a raw-material for manufacturing of Car, so the demand of the Cars in the market is direct demand. Depending on ‘direct demand’ of Cars, the steel will be ordered by the car manufacturing companies. So the demand of steel for the steel companies have been ‘derived’ from the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - demand of car manufacturing companies-so demand of steel is a ‘derived demand’.” 2. Thus, the answer as per Key-answer is “D” and not “C”, as argued by Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, learned vice counsel for the petitioner. As far as question No. 188 is concerned, the petitioner has given three choices, which are not permissible under law. Petitioner was required to give only one answer. Thus, the three answers given by the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration. 3. In view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. The result alongwith opinion is returned to Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Board in a sealed cover. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge October 21, 2011. (bhupender) - 3 - `