JUDGMENT S. D. Agarwala, J. 1. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in all the aforementioned writ petitions. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that all the three writ petitions be disposed of at the admission stage. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and the learned Standing Counsel. The dispute in these writ petitions relate to Ram Krishna Mahila Vidya Mandir, Mughalsarai, Varanasi. Smt. Vimla Maurya is the Head Mistrees of the institution. Initially she was suspended from service and the suspension order against her was approved by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Varanasi, by her order 28th October, 1986. Thereafter enquiry proceedings were conducted against her and the Management submitted proposal to the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission for approving the resolution passed by the Committee of Management dismissing her from service. On 30th July, 1987 the Commission returned the papers to the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools on the ground that since there was dispute in regard to the committee of management, hence it was not possible to pass any order for approval or disapproval of the resolution of the Committee of Management. After the order dated 30th of July, 1987 was passed, the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools by an order dated 26th February, 1988 revoked the suspension order. The orders dated 30th July, 1987 and 26th February, 1988 have been challenged in Writ Petition No. 4034 of 1988. 3. Thereafter on 27th October, 1989 the Commission passed an order saying that since the papers in regard to approval matter have already been returned and the matter has been sufficiently delayed, the proceedings for approval be treated to have come to an end and the records be consigned. This order has been challenged by the Committee of Management in Writ Petition No. 2862 of 1990. 4. On 3rd of March, 1990 another order has been passed by the District Inspectress of Girls Schools, Varanasi directing single operation of accounts. This order is the subject matter of Writ Petition No. 6504 of 1990. This order has been challenged by the Committee of Management in Writ Petition No. 2862 of 1990. 4. On 3rd of March, 1990 another order has been passed by the District Inspectress of Girls Schools, Varanasi directing single operation of accounts. This order is the subject matter of Writ Petition No. 6504 of 1990. Section 21 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (U. P. Act V of 1982) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides that no teacher shall be dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank and neither his emoluments may be reduced nor he may be given notice of removal from service by the management unless prior approval of the Commission has been obtained. In the instant case the proposal of the management is for dismissing the Head Mistress, who comes within the definition of a 'teacher'. In the circumstances, unless the proposal of dismissal of the Head Mistress is approved by the Commission, she cannot be dismissed from service 5. Section 21 of the Act does not lay down what circumstances have to be considered by the Commission before approving or disapproving a proposal of the Committee of Management. In our opinion the main factors to be considered are whether the proposal is just and proper, whether procedure prescribed by the Regulations have been followed, whether the teacher concerned has been afforded adequate opportunity of being heard, whether the charges against the teacher have been established on records and further whether on the charges established, the proposed punishment be awarded or not in the interest of justice. We have only given a few factors as illustrative, but they are not exhaustive. The Commission, however, is not obliged to go into the question of the validity of the Committee of Management which had passed the proposed resolution. If a particular committee of management has been recognised for purposes of managing an institution and the papers are sent by such committee of management to the Commission, the Commission cannot refuse to exercise its jurisdiction by returning the papers on the ground that there is a dispute with regard to the management and a rival committee of management has been set up. 6. In the instant case the committee of management was recognised by the District Inspectress of Girls Schools for running the institution. 6. In the instant case the committee of management was recognised by the District Inspectress of Girls Schools for running the institution. The District Inspectress of Girls Schools has now referred the dispute in regard to the validity of the committee of management to the Deputy Director for his opinion, but it is not disputed that the present committee of management which had passed the resolution against the Head Mistress was running the institution. IN any case, now fresh elections have taken place and the committee of management which had passed the earlier resolution has now come in effective control of the institution. IN the circumstances the dispute in regard to the question of the validity of the committee of management ceases to have any importance now and it is necessary in the interests of justice that the Commission should now exercise its statutory powers conferred upon it under section 21 of the Act. Learned counsel for the committee of management has, however, further urged that the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools had wrongly revoked the suspension order passed against the Head Mistress on 26-2-1988. In our opinion this submission is without substance Under section 16-G (8) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. it is provided that if, at any time, the Inspector is satisfied that disciplinary proceedings against the Head of Institution or teacher are being delayed, for no fault of the Head of Institution, or the teacher, the Inspector may, after affording opportunity to the Management to make representation revoke an order of suspension passed under this section. Admittedly the delay in the disposal of the disciplinary proceedings was because of the attitude of the Commission in not passing final orders on the matter of approval. There was no fault of the Head Mistress against whom the disciplinary proceedings had been taken for the delay in the finalisation of the proceedings In the circumstances the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools was justified in revoking the suspension order. It is also not disputed that the Head Mistress has not been paid her salary inspite of the revocation of the suspension order. In the circumstances the order passed for single operation of the account is also not liable to be interfered with by this Court. 7. In the result, all the three writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions : So far as Writ Petition Nos. In the circumstances the order passed for single operation of the account is also not liable to be interfered with by this Court. 7. In the result, all the three writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions : So far as Writ Petition Nos. 4034 of 1988 and 2862 of 1990 are concerned, they are disposed of with the direction that the Commission constituted under the Act shall dispose of the matter of approval referred to it within a period of three months from the date the papers are submitted to it by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools. The Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools is directed to send back the papers to the Commission (which were received by her by the letter dated 30-7-1987 from the Commission) forthwith on the receipt of a certified copy of this order. IN so far as Writ Petition No. 6504 of 1990 is concerned, it is hereby dismissed. We further direct that the Head Mistress, Smt. Vimla Maurya, shall be entitled to work with her full salary till she is dismissed from service in accordance with law. The arrears of salary to Smt. Vimla Maurya, the Head Mistress, be paid within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the District Inspectress of Girls Schools, Varanasi.