6] As noted earlier, although the reliefs in the petition were couched in wide and general terms, the controversy during the course of arguments narrowed down to the apprehended continuance of respondent No.9 in the posts of Executive Director(Investigation) and CVO for yet another term. In the matter of appointments of CVO, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have issued guidelines from time to time, which undoubtedly make it clear that the CVO ought not to be a party to processing and decision making process or in other similar administrative transactions of such nature, which are likely to have clear vigilance sensitivity. The guidelines note that while it may not be difficult for full-time vigilance functionaries to comply with such guidelines, compliance could be achieved in respect of part-time vigilance functionaries by confining their duties, other than those connected with vigilance works, as far as possible, to such items of work that are either free from vigilance angle or serve as input to vigilance activities such as inspection, audit etc. Obviously, such guidelines are to ensure that there arises no issue of conflict of interest. However, at the same time, such guidelines do not completely rule out the appointments of CVOs on part time basis. The CVC Annual Report 2013, upon which reliance was placed by learned counsel for respondent No.5 suggest that out of total 607
