former files a counter affidavit taking a clear stand. The latter prefers to maintain silence, not filing a counter affidavit. The conduct of the B.C./E.B.C. Department in relieving the petitioner, annulling the relieving order and finally relieving on 16.7.2011 satisfies the Court that the B.C./E.B.C. Department was also of the opinion that she was not their employee. Otherwise it would have taken up the issue with the S.C./S.T. Department. The entire gamut of facts reflect a pure administrative issue. The petitioner was appointed by the Welfare Department. Thereafter, it was bifurcated into three Departments. Which employee would be allocated what Department naturally had to be a policy matter for the respondents to consider. The exercise necessarily had to be complicated and time consuming. The fact that the petitioner may have been posted to a Backward Girls School in 2005 prior to the bifurcation of the Welfare Department in 2007 cannot lead to a conclusion that she is admittedly acknowledged to be an employee of the B.C./E.B.C. Department. The sheet anchor of the petitioner’s claim is the letter dated 2.9.2011 which has now been withdrawn with retrospective effect for specified reasons on 6.9.2011.
