Ext.P23 clarification, I do not see any reason why the petitioners should be denied the benefit of vacation salary, more so when there is no statutory provision that is brought to my notice which would indicate that the petitioners are not entitled to such vacation salary. It might also be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Pathanapuram Taluk Samajam Corporate Management Schools v. Sreelatha - [2006 (3) KLT 867], which was rendered in the context of a case where the applicability of Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA of the KER to appointments effected under Chapter XXXII of the KER, came up for consideration, and it was held that unless a similar provision, as contained in Rule 51B, was incorporated in Chapter XXXII, it was not possible to contend that the benefits of employment assistance available to dependents of aided High School and Primary School teachers could be extended to vacancies available in Higher Secondary Section. Drawing analogy from the said decision, and also noticing that there is no provision similar to Rule 49A of Chapter XIVA in Chapter XXXII of the KER, I am of the view that the condition impugned in the orders passed by the 3rd respondent cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, I quash Exts.P3 to P21 in W.P.(C).No.15651/2014 and Exts.P3 and P4 in
