ORDER The petitioner is Chairman of Bihar Public Service Commission. He has challenged the order dated 02.03.2009 contained in Memo no. 17074 dated 06.03.2009 of State Information Commission appointing him as Public Information Officer of the Bihar Public Service Commission. 2. The respondent no.3 was one of the applicants for the 26th Bihar Judicial Service Examination, 2005 conducted in the year, 2006. The result was announced on 29.06.2007. He filed an application before the Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.P.S.C.’) on 17.08.2007 requesting verification of marks of two of the papers with further reminder on 10.09.2007. Thereafter he sought information under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2005’) from Public Information Officer, Bihar Public Service Commission by filing application on 29.11.2007 and seeking information regarding the action taken on the said application. He had also filed an application on 08.04.2007 for making available of the photo copy of the answer books. It appears that information regarding verification of marks was furnished but photo copies of the answer-sheets was not provided initially claiming exemption under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act. The State Information Commission by order dated 22.07.2008 directed the B.P.S.C. to provide copies of answer-sheets till 08.09.2008. The State Information Commission in its order dated 11.09.2008 imposed a fine of Rs.13,000/- with effect from 22.07.2008 and in case the violation continued, the mandatory fine of Rs.250/- per day was to continue. 3. Both the orders dated 22.07.2008 and 11.09.2008 were challenged in I.A. No.7111 of 2009. A Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.12.2008 noting that the ingredients provided under Section 20 of the Act were not duly complied with, quashed the impugned orders. 4. So far as giving a copy of answer-sheets were concerned, the learned Advocate General appearing for B.P.S.C. submitted before the Court that the B.P.S.C. is willing to supply the copy of two papers as sought by respondent no.3. This Court while disposing of the I.A. No. 7111 of 2008 directed the Commission to supply the certified copy of the answer-sheets. 5. The Bihar Public Service Commission filed a review application bearing Civil Review No.13 of 2009 stating that it had not instructed its Senior counsel that the B.P.S.C. was willing to supply the photo copy of answer sheets. This Court while disposing of the I.A. No. 7111 of 2008 directed the Commission to supply the certified copy of the answer-sheets. 5. The Bihar Public Service Commission filed a review application bearing Civil Review No.13 of 2009 stating that it had not instructed its Senior counsel that the B.P.S.C. was willing to supply the photo copy of answer sheets. In the meantime, the Bihar Public Service Commission vide its’ order dated 02.03.2009 declared the Chairman of Bihar Public Service Commission as Public Information Officer in the case and directed to ensure full information on respondent no.3 on or before 01.06.2009 otherwise a fine of Rs.250/- per day was imposed. The order dated 02.03.2009 has been impugned in this writ application. 6. On 14.05.2009, this Court stayed the operation of impugned order dated 02.03.2009. 7. The petitioner submits that Bihar Public Service Commission vide Memo no. 1155 dated 20.09.2006 has appointed the Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission and Officer on Special Duty as Appellate Authority and Public Information Officer under Section 19 and 5 of the Act respectively. 8. It is relevant to state that the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No.11670 of 2009 observed that the commission would be obliged to furnish the copy of the answer-sheets to the candidates, if a request is made to the aforesaid effect. 9. The Bihar Public Service Commission subsequently provided answer sheets to respondent no.3, and this took care of his grievance. 10. The core issue is whether the State Information Commission can appoint a Public Information Officer or whether it would be the authority concerned which would be entitled to appoint its own Public Information Officers. 11. To answer the issue, the relevant provisions are to be noticed. Section 2 (h) of the Right to Information Act defines ‘Public Authority’, as follows;– 2(h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted,- (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-government Organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; 12. The Public Service Commission has been created under Article 320 of the Constitution of India and as such it is a ‘public authority’ within Section 2 (h)(a) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Section 5 of the Right to Information Act confers power on every public authority within the meaning of Section 2 (h) of the Act to designate as many of its officers as Public Information Officers to the authorities itself. Section 5 (1) of the Act is quoted herein below for easy reference:– “5. (1) Every public authority shall, within one hundred days of the enactment of this Act, designate as many officers as Central Public Information Officers or State Public Information Officers, as the case may be, in all administrative units or offices under it as may be necessary to provide information to persons requesting for the information under this Act”. 13. It would appear from the provisions that the power of designating its officer as Public Information Officer is inherent in the authority. The converse follows that no other authority can appoint a Public Information Officer for another authority. Furthermore, the power and functions of both the Central Information Commission as well as State Information Commission have been detailed in Section 19 (8) of the Act, which is quoted herein below for easy reference:– 19.(8)(a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including- (i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form; (ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be; (iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information; (iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records; (v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its officials; (vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 4; 14. It would appear from perusal of Section 19(8)(a) of the Act that at the most the State Information Commission can require a Public authority to appoint a Public Information Officer, if it has not appointed one. 15. It would appear from perusal of Section 19(8)(a) of the Act that at the most the State Information Commission can require a Public authority to appoint a Public Information Officer, if it has not appointed one. 15. The provision does not bestow power on the State Information Commission to appoint a Public Information Officer or an Appellate Authority to hear appeal for another authority under Section 5 and 19 of the Act respectively. The State Information Commission can require of an authority and its Public Information Officer or Appellate Authority to furnish the required informations. It can impose penalty if it finds that Public Information is guilty or a negligent in providing informations as provided under the Act. 16. Even the recommendations made by the Station Information Commission to start a proceeding against the erring Public Information Officer may not be binding on the authority. It would be up to authority whether to accept the recommendation of the State Information Commission or not to accept the recommendation. 17. In view of express provision of Section 5 of the Act, I hold that public authority as defined under Section 2 (h) of the Act alone can appoint its own Public Information Officer under Section 5 of the Act. Section 19 (8) of the Act, which deals power and functions of both Central Information Commission and State Information Commission does not confer power on the State Information Commission to appoint a Public Information Officer or even its appellate authority. 18. Thus, B.P.S.C. or any other authority within the meaning of Section 2 (h) of the Act would have exclusive jurisdiction to designate its own officials as Public Information Officer and Appellate Authority under Section 5 and 19 of the Act. 19. In this view of the matter, the impugned order appointing Chairman B.P.S.C. as Public Information Officer is not sustainable in law and is accordingly quashed. 20. The writ application is allowed.