The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Vigilance inquiries into past selections made by the Haryana Public Service Commission were justified under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as the Chairman and members of the Commission were included in the definition of public servants.

Viney Mittal, J.

1. Through the present petition, an unfortunate attempt has been made by the Haryana Public Service Commission ( hereinafter called the "Commission") to thwart the efforts made by the State Government to find out as to whether in some of the past selections made by the Commission, its Officers and Officials, its Secretary, its Members and the past Chairman etc. had acted on some extraneous and illegal consideration. The Commission complains that holding of the aforesaid Vigilance inquiries and summoning of the record of the aforesaid previous selections by the Vigilance Department was, in fact, an encroachment upon the independence and the constitutional status of the Commission.

2. It has been averred by the Commission that general elections to the State assembly were held in the State of Haryana in February/March, 2005. As a result of the same "Congress Government" was formed in the State. Although, it has hastened to add that the present Chairman and the members are non-political persons. It has been averred that the present Chairman and the present members of the Commission are the appointees of the previous "Indian National Lok Dal" Government. It has been pleaded in the present petition that after the formation of the new Government, various communication has been received by the Commission requiring to it to supply certain records pertaining to some past selections.

The Commission on its part replied to all the aforesaid communications by refusing to supply the record and reiterated its constitutional status and authority. Additionally, a reliance was also placed on the advise of Legal Remembrancer, Haryana contained in the memorandum dated March 12, 1987, from the Chief Secretary to Director State Vigilance Bureau, whereby it was communicated that "the Chairman/Members of the Haryana Public Service Commission are not Government servants covered by the instructions obtaining in letter No. 4/22/78-Vig.(1) dated 19.2.1980. Vigilance Department have, therefore, no jurisdiction to check and scrutinise the records of the Public Service Commission as the same is a constitutional authority". The Communication dated July 4, 2005 from the Chief Secretary to Government Haryana addressed to the Director State Vigilance Bureau, a copy whereby was also endorsed to the Haryana Public Service Commission, vide endorsement of the aforesaid date has been appended as Annexure P/21 with the present petition.

At this stage, it would be relevant to extract the aforesaid communication for appreciating the stand taken by the State Government:

"I am directed to invite your kind attention to your Memo No. 1241/SVB-9 dated 7.5.2005 on the above subject and to state that the issue whether Vigilance Department/State Vigilance Bureau has the jurisdiction to investigate and enquire into the complaints and information containing allegations of corruption against Chairman, members and others employees of the Haryana Public Service Commission came to be re-examined in view of certain complaints/information received in Vigilance Department/Vigilance Bureau against Chairman/Members of the Commission. In this regard, attention is drawn to an earlier letter of the State Government issued Memo No. 66/6/87-7 GSI dated 10th March, 1987 which based on the advice of L.R. had stated that the Vigilance Department has no jurisdiction to check and scrutinise the record of the Public Service Commission. But with the enactment of Prevention of Corruption Act in the year, 1988 the position has undergone total change. This matter was recently referred to L.R. for advice, L.R. has advised as given below: "The previous advice was given on the premise that being a constitutional authority, the Chairman/Members of Haryana Public Service Commission could not be covered under the definition of Government servant/Public Servant so as to be amendable to the jurisdiction of the Vigilance Department. However, after the enactment of Prevention of Corruptio