1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed by the Appellant-in-person against the judgment and order dated 04.07.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 932 of 2013 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ appeal filed by the Respondents herein against the order dated 08.04.2013 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in W.P. No. 12676 of 2012 and, in consequence, dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellant herein as being not maintainable.
3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in this appeal, which lie in a narrow compass, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts.
(a) The S.R.M. University-Respondent No. 1 herein is the Institution engaged in imparting high education in various subjects. The Central Government has, therefore, on the advise of University Grants Commission (in short "UGC") declared Respondent No. 1 as "Deemed University" by issuing a notification Under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (in short "the UGC Act"). Respondent No. 1 is, therefore, subjected to ensuring compliance of all the provisions of UGC Act in its functioning.
(b) The Appellant is holding M.Sc. and Ph.D. in applied Biology. She was appointed as a Lecturer in the Department of Bio-technology in the Faculty of Sciences and Humanity in the SRM University-Respondent No. 1. By order dated 05.05.2010, she was promoted as Senior Lecturer w.e.f. 01.04.2010.
(c) On 14.02.2012, the Appellant was served with a memo calling upon her to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against her for the alleged failure to take classes of the students of B. Sc. Third Year degree course and M.Sc. First Year degree course. The Appellant submitted her replies on 15.02.2012 and 20.02.2012 denying the allegations and claiming that she took classes for both the courses.
(d) Thereafter, another memo dated 22.02.2012 was issued by the Registrar in-charge of the University referring certain complaints given against her by the students. Refuting the charges, the Appellant submitted her reply on 29.02.2012.
(e) Dissatisfied with the explanation given by the Appellant, Respondent No. 1-SRM University constituted an Enquiry Committee and the Appellant appeared before the said Committee on 02.03.2012 and stated that she was not furnished the documents and the copies of the complaints. Thereafter she submitted a detailed explanation on 26.03.2012.
(f) Thereafter the Appellant received a notice dated 04.04.2012 mentioning therein that the same shall be treated as one month's notice and she would be relieved from the services w.e.f. 04.05.2012. According to the Appellant, she received the notice on 16.04.2012.
(g) Challenging the said notice, the Appellant filed Writ Petition No. 12676 of 2012 before the High Court. By order dated 08.04.2013, the Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the termination notice and directed the Respondents to reinstate the Appellant into service.
(h) Against the said order, Respondent No. 1 herein filed Writ Appeal No. 932 of 2013 before the High Court. By impugned judgment dated 04.07.........