JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. By way of present writ petition, petitioner-Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission has challenged order dated 24.12.2008, passed by respondent No. 1 vide which, respondent No. 1 has inter-alia directed the petitioner-Commission to disclose the names of Experts/Departmental Representatives and furnish photocopies of the interview sheets to respondent No. 2 by holding that the information so desired by respondent No. 2 was not covered under any of the exemptions contained in Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved, it is necessary to dwell on the facts of the case. Respondent No. 2 vide application dated 08.05.2008 (Annexure P-1) sought information under the Right to Information Act with regard to selection of Assistant Engineer (Civil) I.P.H. Department held in the year 2004. Information which was sought by him is reproduced herein-below: “(1) Kindly provide the names, addresses & qualifications of all the candidates who appeared in interview in the month of Jan 2004 & Oct 2004. (2) Kindly provide the names of the members & experts who visited from the Deptt. & outside alongwith their Designation & addresses during both the interviews for the same posts. (3) Kindly provide the marks obtained by the each candidate in the interviews held in Jan & Dec. (4) Kindly provide the list of all the candidates in the waiting in the order of their merit i.e. in the descending order.” 3. It seems that the information desired by him was not provided on the pretext that the petitioner had weeded out the entire record pertaining to the period between January 2004 to October 2004. This led respondent No. 2 to seek further information from the petitioner vide letter dated 17.06.2008 (Annexure P1/2) vide which he sought the following information:- “(1) Who made the orders to weed out the record pertaining to Jan-04 & Oct-04 interviews. Kindly provide the Xerox copy of the orders. (2) What was the compulsion to weed out the record as the matter is pending in the Court. An O.A. was filed immediately after the declaration of the result. (3) You have provided the information related to this case for the month of Jan-04 under the title information sought Reg V.K. Malik, which includes the information of Jan-04 interviews. From where you collected that information. An O.A. was filed immediately after the declaration of the result. (3) You have provided the information related to this case for the month of Jan-04 under the title information sought Reg V.K. Malik, which includes the information of Jan-04 interviews. From where you collected that information. (4) Do you weed out the record after every interview, as a person can have the record of last 20 years under RTI-2005. (5) Kindly tell me how long after the declaration of result of an interview the record is being weeded out. Is this process being adopted in all the interviews. (6) Does the commission have the directions of the Hon’ble High Court given on 22 April 2004 in the decision of CWP-97, who has directed to keep the record in safe custody & which has to be produced as and when reqd. (7) You have not sent the Names & addresses, of the Experts, members who attended the interviews, don’t you have their names & addresses in the correspondence file too. (8) Kindly provide the Xerox copy of interview sheets used in these interviews which is being signed by the all the experts, members attending the interview & as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court it cann’t be weeded out which has to be kept in the safe custody.” 4. According to the petitioner, information so desired by respondent No. 2 was made available to him except information with respect to Points No. 7 and 8, as the same could not have been supplied to respondent No. 2 in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act. This fact was accordingly communicated to respondent No. 2. 5. Feeling dissatisfied with communication dated 21.08.2008, vide which information on Points No. 7 and 8 was declined to him, respondent No. 2 filed an appeal before respondent No. 1, wherein he sought directions to the effect that petitioner be directed to disclose names and addresses of the experts and also to supply him photocopies of the interview sheets pertaining to the process undertaken by the petitioner for appointment of Assistant Engineers (Civil) in IPH Department in the year 2004. 6. 6. Respondent No. 1, on the said appeal, passed an order dated 22.08.2008 vide which it directed petitioner to communicate the decision preferably before 31.10.2008 to respondent No. 2 with respect to Points No. 7 and 8 of the application of the said respondent dated 17.06.2008. This direction was issued in view of the stand of the P.I.O. of the petitioner that issue pertaining to Points No. 7 and 8 of the application filed by respondent No. 2 was still under consideration of the petitioner on the suggestions of respondent No. 1 in another case. 7. Petitioner, however, did not take any decision in this matter within the time schedule mentioned in order dated 22.08.2008 issued by respondent No. 1. In this background, respondent No. 2 again filed an appeal before respondent No. 1, in which on 17.12.2008 respondent No. 1 directed the petitioner to expedite its decision as has been directed by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 22.10.2008. 8. Thereafter, petitioner took a decision on this aspect of the matter on 20.12.2008, copy of which is on record with the petition as Annexure P-4. Vide Annexure P-5, petitioner submitted its reply before respondent No. 1, in which it reiterated that the information sought by respondent No. 2 cannot be disclosed by referring to the provisions of Section 8(1)(e) 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act. 9. Respondent No. 1 vide its order dated 24.12.2008 (Annexure P-6) has allowed the appeal so filed by respondent No. 2 and has directed the petitioner to disclose the names of the Experts/Department Representatives and furnish photocopies of interview sheets to the applicant/respondent No. 2 as demanded by him against Points No. 7 and 8 vide his application dated 17.06.2008 within a week of the receipt of the said order. Feeling aggrieved by the said directions issued by respondent No. 1, the petitioner has filed present writ petition. 10. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the entire information which was sought by respondent No. 2, to which he was entitled under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, stands supplied to him. As per Mr. 10. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the entire information which was sought by respondent No. 2, to which he was entitled under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, stands supplied to him. As per Mr. Dogra, the information which respondent No. 2 had sought vide his application dated 17.06.2008 in Points No. 7 and 8 was exempted from being supplied under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005, in view of provisions of Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(g) and the directions so issued vide impugned order by respondent No. 1 to furnish the said information to respondent No. 2, is not only against the spirit of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, but the issuance of said direction is also beyond the competence and jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 because the said respondent cannot direct a Public Authority to furnish information under the Right to Information Act beyond what is contemplated in the provisions of the said Act. 11. The contention of Mr. Dogra is that the information which has been sought by respondent No. 2 is that the Commission may disclose the names and addresses of the Experts/ Members who attended the interviews for selection of Assistant Engineers (Civil) in IPH Department held in the year 2004 and he further demanded Xerox copy of interview sheets used in these interviews by Experts/Members attending the interviews. Mr. Dogra has drawn the attention of this Court to the provisions of Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(g), which read as under:- “8 Exemption from disclosure of information:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen:- (e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; (g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; 12. Mr. Mr. Dogra has further argued that under the provisions of Section 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act, it is categorically mentioned that there shall be no obligation to give to any citizen information, disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes. 13. Mr. Dogra contends that the identity of the Experts/Members who are associated by the petitioner-Commission in the selection process it undertakes for recommending officers for appointment to various posts, is kept confidential because the petitioner-Commission has to offer the said Experts/Members a comfort zone in the performance of their duties wherein the said Expert/Members have faith that their identity shall not be revealed either to the candidates whom they are interviewing or to any other person so that they are not targeted subsequently by elements including candidates who may be disgruntled and not satisfied with the out come of the said selection. 14. Similarly, he has further contended that even as far as the interview sheets are concerned, the same cannot be made available to anyone under the provisions of Right to Information Act because unlike answer sheets which are attempted by candidates, an interview sheet is a document which is maintained by the Expert/Member, on which the Expert/Member mentions/notes down his opinion/view of the candidate who is being interviewed on which basis evaluation of the candidate is done. These interview sheets obviously are signed by the Expert/Member and if they are made available under the Right to Information Act, it shall disclose the identify of the Expert/Member. 15. He has further relied upon two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, i.e. (i) Central Board of Secondary Education and another Vs. Aditya Bandopandhyay and others, (2011) 8 Supreme Court Cases 497; (ii) Bihar Public Service Commission Vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr, JT 2012(12) SC 552. 16. Therefore, according to Mr. Dogra, the impugned order vide which respondent No. 1 has directed the petitioner to supply information to respondent No. 2 with regard to Points No. 7 and 8 raised in his application dated 17.06.2008 is per se illegal and bad in law and is, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. 16. Therefore, according to Mr. Dogra, the impugned order vide which respondent No. 1 has directed the petitioner to supply information to respondent No. 2 with regard to Points No. 7 and 8 raised in his application dated 17.06.2008 is per se illegal and bad in law and is, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. No such direction could have been issued by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner in view of the provisions of Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act and thus according to Mr. Dogra, respondent No. 1 has exceeded its jurisdiction while issuing the impugned order. 17. Mr. Ajay Chandel, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has argued that there is no infirmity with the order passed by respondent No. 1 and the information which was sought by respondent No. 2 under the Right to Information Act is neither exempted under the provision of Section 8(1)(e) nor under the provision of Section 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act. Mr. Chandel has further argued that the main objective of the Right to Information Act is to secure access to the citizens to information under the control of public authorities in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. He has urged that the order of supplying requisite information issued by respondent No. 1 has been rightly passed because the information which has been directed to be made available to respondent No. 2 is not exempted under the provisions of Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act. He has accordingly argued that the petitioner is bound to disclose the information as has been desired by respondent No. 2 and, therefore, the order passed by respondent No. 1 is not beyond its jurisdiction and the same has been passed to uphold the majesty of law and the provisions of Right to Information Act. He has thus prayed for the dismissal of the petition with costs. 18. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of the case. 19. The information which was sought by respondent No. 2 and which was not supplied to him by the Commission is the name and addresses of Experts/Members who were associated in the selection process of six Assistant Engineers (Civil) in I.P.H. Department in the year 2004. 20. 19. The information which was sought by respondent No. 2 and which was not supplied to him by the Commission is the name and addresses of Experts/Members who were associated in the selection process of six Assistant Engineers (Civil) in I.P.H. Department in the year 2004. 20. This Court is of the considered view that the information which has been ordered to be disclosed by way of impugned order by respondent No. 1 is exempted from being disclosed under the provisions of Section 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act. The said provisions categorically mention that there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person. 21. In my considered view, when the petitioner-Commission engages the services of an Expert or a Member to be a part of selection process, it expects such Expert or Member not to disclose the information regarding evaluation to anyone other than the Commission. Similarly, an Expert/Member also expects that his name and particulars would not be disclosed to the candidates who are being interviewed by him or to any other person. This is for the reason that in case such information is made known, disgruntled candidates who are not satisfied with evaluation may act to the prejudice of the Expert/Member by endangering the life or physical safety of such Expert/Member. Further, any kind of apprehension on the part of such Expert/Member to the effect that there may be danger to his physical safety if his identity becomes known may come in his way to effectively discharge his duties and he may not be able to discharge his duties appropriately. 22. Similarly, even with regard to the interview sheets, in view of the fact that such interview sheets usually contain the signatures and codes etc. of the Expert/Member, the information with regard to their names or their particulars shall become public if the same are made available under the Right to Information Act. Therefore, it is necessary that interview sheets are exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act on the ground that if such information is disclosed, it may endanger the physical safety of the Expert/Member. 23. Therefore, it is necessary that interview sheets are exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act on the ground that if such information is disclosed, it may endanger the physical safety of the Expert/Member. 23. This Court is not oblivious to the provisions of Section 10 of the Right to Information Act which deals with the severability of the information which can be provided and which cannot be provided. 24. The question which this Court has to decide is whether it can be said that a part of the interview sheet can be made available to a candidate or any other person under the Right to Information Act. 25. In my considered view, the answer is in negative. This is for the reason that the interview sheets are to be filled in by the Expert/ Member and it is obvious that these interview sheets are also to carry the signatures and codes etc. of the Expert/Member. In this view of the matter, the principle of severability cannot be applied to an interview sheet and, therefore, interview sheets are exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act because disclosure of the same is obviously going to reveal the identity of the Expert/Member. 26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Central Board of Secondary Education and another Vs. Aditya Bandopandhyay and others, (2011) 8 Supreme Court Cases 497 in paragraphs No. 52 and 53 as under:- “52. When an examining body engages the services of an examiner to evaluate the answer-books, the examining body expects the examiner not to disclose the information regarding evaluation to anyone other than the examining body. Similarly the examiner also expects that his name and particulars would not be disclosed to the candidates whose answer-books are evaluated by him. In the event of such information being made known, a disgruntled examinee who is not satisfied with the evaluation of the answer books, may act to the prejudice of the examiner by attempting to endanger his physical safety. Further, any apprehension on the part of the examiner that there may be danger to his physical safety, if his identity becomes known to the examinees, may come in the way of effective discharge of his duties. The above applies not only to the examiner, but also to the scrutiniser, coordinator, and head-examiner who deal with the answer book. 53. Further, any apprehension on the part of the examiner that there may be danger to his physical safety, if his identity becomes known to the examinees, may come in the way of effective discharge of his duties. The above applies not only to the examiner, but also to the scrutiniser, coordinator, and head-examiner who deal with the answer book. 53. The answer book usually contains not only the signature and code number of the examiner, but also the signatures and code number of the scrutiniser/coordinator/head examiner. The information as to the names or particulars of the examiners/co-ordinators/scrutinisers/head examiners are therefore exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act, on the ground that if such information is disclosed, it may endanger their physical safety. Therefore, if the examinees are to be given access to evaluated answer books either by permitting inspection or by granting certified copies, such access will have to be given only to that part of the answer-book which does not contain any information or signature of the examiners/coordinators/scrutinisers/head examiners, exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act. Those portions of the answer-books which contain information regarding the examiners/co-ordinators/scrutinisers/head examiners or which may disclose their identity with reference to signature or initials, shall have to be removed, covered, or otherwise severed from the non-exempted part of the answer-books, under section 10 of RTI Act.” 27. Thereafter, this judgment has been again relied upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bihar Public Service Commission Vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr, JT 2012 (12) SC 552 and the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read as under: “29. Now, the ancillary question that arises is as to the consequences that the interviewers or the members of the interview board would be exposed to in the event their names and addresses or individual marks given by them are directed to be disclosed. Firstly, the members of the Board are likely to be exposed to danger to their lives or physical safety. Secondly, it will hamper effective performance and discharge of their duties as examiners. This is the information available with the examining body in confidence with the interviewers. Declaration of collective marks to the candidate is one thing and that, in fact, has been permitted by the authorities as well as the High Court. We see no error of jurisdiction or reasoning in this regard. This is the information available with the examining body in confidence with the interviewers. Declaration of collective marks to the candidate is one thing and that, in fact, has been permitted by the authorities as well as the High Court. We see no error of jurisdiction or reasoning in this regard. But direction to furnish the names and addresses of the interviewers would certainly be opposed to the very spirit of Section 8(1)(g) of the Act. CBSE case (supra) has given suggicient reasoning in this regard and at this stage, we may refer to paragraphs 52 and 53 of the said judgment which read as under: “52. When an examining body engages the services of an examiner to evaluate the answer-books, the examining body expects the examiner not to disclose the information regarding evaluation to anyone other than the examining body. Similarly the examiner also expects that his name and particulars would not be disclosed to the candidates whose answer-books are evaluated by him. In the event of such information being made known, a disgruntled examinee who is not satisfied with the evaluation of the answer books, may act to the prejudice of the examiner by attempting to endanger his physical safety. Further, any apprehension on the part of the examiner that there may be danger to his physical safety, if his identity becomes known to the examinees, may come in the way of effective discharge of his duties. The above applies not only to the examiner, but also to the scrutiniser, coordinator, and head-examiner who deal with the answer book. 53. The answer book usually contains not only the signature and code number of the examiner, but also the signatures and code number of the scrutiniser/coordinator/head examiner. The information as to the names or particulars of the examiners/co-ordinators/scrutinisers/head examiners are therefore exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act, on the ground that if such information is disclosed, it may endanger their physical safety. Therefore, if the examinees are to be given access to evaluated answer books either by permitting inspection or by granting certified copies, such access will have to be given only to that part of the answer-book which does not contain any information or signature of the examiners/coordinators/scrutinisers/head examiners, exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act. Therefore, if the examinees are to be given access to evaluated answer books either by permitting inspection or by granting certified copies, such access will have to be given only to that part of the answer-book which does not contain any information or signature of the examiners/coordinators/scrutinisers/head examiners, exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act. Those portions of the answer-books which contain information regarding the examiners/co-ordinators/scrutinisers/head examiners or which may disclose their identity with reference to signature or initials, shall have to be removed, covered, or otherwise severed from the non-exempted part of the answer-books, under section 10 of RTI Act.” 30. The above reasoning of the Bench squarely applies to the present case as well. The disclosure of names and addresses of the members of the interview Board would ex facie endanger their lives or physical safety. The possibility of a failed candidate attempting to take revenge from such persons cannot be ruled out. On the one hand, it is likely to expose the members of the interview Board to harm and, on the other, such disclosure would serve no fruitful much less any public purpose. Furthermore, the view of the High Court in the judgment under appeal that element of bias can be traced and would be crystallized only if the names and addresses of the examiners/interviewers are furnished is without any substance. The element of bias can hardly be co-related with the disclosure of the names and addresses of the interviewers. Bias is not a ground which can be considered for or against a party making an application to which exemption under Section 8 is pleaded as a defence. We are unable to accept this reasoning of the High Court. Suffice it to note that the reasoning of the High Court is not in conformity with the principles stated by this Court in CBSE case (supra). The transparency that is expected to be maintained in such process would not take within its ambit the disclosure of the information called for under query No. 1 of the application. Transparency in such cases is relatable to the process where selection is based on collective wisdom and collective marking. Marks are required to disclosed but disclosure of individual names would hardly hold relevancy either to the concept of transparency or for proper exercise of the right to information within the limitation of the Act.” 28. Transparency in such cases is relatable to the process where selection is based on collective wisdom and collective marking. Marks are required to disclosed but disclosure of individual names would hardly hold relevancy either to the concept of transparency or for proper exercise of the right to information within the limitation of the Act.” 28. It is pertinent to mention that enactment of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is a historic event in the annals of the democracy in India, keeping in view that information is power and now a citizen has got right to access information which is held by or is under the control of public authorities. Similarly, now it is the duty of all public authorities to provide information sought by the citizens. Purpose behind this is that the Right to Information is expected to lead to an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are necessary for the functioning of democracy. However, the legislature in its wisdom has also carved out certain exceptions wherein there is exemption from disclosure of information. There is a reason and a rationale as to why these exceptions have been carved out to the general rule of making information available to the citizenry which is with the public authorities. The reason and rationale is that larger public interest is still paramount and the information which can be provided to a citizen has to sub serve the larger public interest. Therefore, when larger public interest demands that an information available with the public authority is not to be imparted under the Right to Information Act, then a citizen cannot claim to have excess to that information. Moreover, what information comes within the exemptions does not depend upon the whims of the authorities and is defined in the Act itself. The information which has been directed to be supplied by respondent No. 1 is exempted from being supplied under the provisions of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act in view of larger public interest. All these aspects of the matter have been ignored by respondent No. 1 while passing impugned order. It has failed to appreciate the ambit of the provisions of Right to Information Act in correct perspective. Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act have been misread and misconstrued by respondent No.1. All these aspects of the matter have been ignored by respondent No. 1 while passing impugned order. It has failed to appreciate the ambit of the provisions of Right to Information Act in correct perspective. Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act have been misread and misconstrued by respondent No.1. The reason given by respondent No. 1 that no case has come to light where any Expert/Departmental Representative has been threatened for his/her participation in the selection process of any public authority including HPSSC or that it is common knowledge that names of Experts/Departmental Representatives are known to a large number of candidates, is no reason on the basis of which, respondent No. 1 could have directed petitioner to furnish information to respondent No. 2 demanded by him against Points No. 7 and 8 in his application dated 17.06.2008. Therefore also, the impugned order is per se bad in law and liable to be quashed and set aside. 29. In view of the above, in my considered view, the directions issued by respondent No. 1 vide impugned order dated 24.12.2008 are not sustainable in law and beyond the provisions of Section 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act. 30. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.12.2008 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No. 1 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.